Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 03 March 2015), November 1902 (t19021117).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 17th November 1902.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

SAMUEL, MAYOR.

FIRST SESSION, HELD NOVEMBER 17TH, 1902.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY

MESSRS. BARNETT AND BUCKLER.

Short-hand Writers to the Court,

ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.

VOLUME CXXXVII.

SESSIONS I. TO VI.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE.

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the King's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

The City of London,

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, November 17th, 1902, and following days,

Before the Right Hon. SIR MARCUS SAMUEL , Knt., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAM, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Bart., M.P.; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir GEORGE F. FAUDEL PHILLIPS, Bart., G.C.I.E., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir JAMES THOMPSON RITCHIE , Knt.; Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knt., HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Esq., and DAVID BURNETT , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; ALBERT FREDERICK BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; LUMLEY SMITH , Esq., K.C., Judge of the City of London Court; and JAMES ALEXANDER RENTOUL , K.C., M.P., LL.D., Deputy Judge of the City of London Court, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Teminer, and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

Sir GEO. WYATT TRUSCOTT, KNT., Alderman.

Sir THOMAS HENRY BROOKE-HITCHING, Knt., J.P.

Sheriffs.

ALFRED PERCY DOULTON, Esq.

JOSEPH DAVID LANGTON , Esq.

Under Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

SAMUEL, MAYOR. FIRST SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custodyâtwo stars (**) that they have been more than once in custodyâa dagger (â ) that they are known to be the associates of bad charactersâthe figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT.âMonday and Tuesday, November 17th and 18th, 1902.

Before Mr. Recorder.

1. JOHN GOODFELLOW (40) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering an acceptance to a Bill of Exchange for Â£500; also to forging and uttering two letters purporting to be the writing of Thomas Pink, with intent to defraud. Three years' penal servitude. â

(3) THOMAS REGINALD HATTON (36) , to obtaining by false pretences from Llewellyn Jones Â£1, from Albany Petch Â£1, and from Frank Rowe 10s., with intent to defraud, having been convicted of felony at Liverpool on November 27th, 1897. Nine months' hard labour. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(4) WILLIAM THOMPSON (42) , to forging and uttering an order for the payment of Â£15; also to stealing a necklace and other articles, the property of Francis James Pearse, his master, having been convicted of felony at Lewes on August 4th, 1891. The prisoner was stated to be a most dangerous man, and a member of a dangerous gang of criminals. Seven years' penal servitude as an habitual criminal. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(5) EDWARD PERRY (20) and ALFRED HOY (23) , to stealing a watch from the person of Arthur Simons, Hoy having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on May 7th, 1901, another conviction was proved against him. Three previous convictions were proved against Perry. HOYâ , Three years' penal servitude: PERRYâ , Eighteen months' hard labour. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(6) ALEXANDER WILLIAM POLLOCK , to stealing, whilst employed under the Post Office, a post letter containing a florin, a 6d., and ten stamps, the property of the Postmaster General. He received a good character. Nine months' hard labour. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(8) JAMES ALBERT CHAPMAN (16), SIDNEY CHARLES AVERY (14), and WILLIAM SOUTHION (14) , to forging, and uttering two bankers' cheques of Â£70 and Â£53 5s. with intent to defraud. They received good characters. CHAPMAN, Eight months in in the second division. AVERY and SOUTHION, Judgment respited. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(9) FREDERICK RICHARDSON (27) , to attempting to break and enter the dwelling house of Thomas Burton, with intent to steal therein: also to feloniously sending to John Lewis a letter demanding; money with menaces. Six previous convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour on the second indictment. No sentence was passed on the first indictment. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

(10) JESSIE WHITEHEAD (19) , to forging and uttering an order, knowing it to be forged, for the payment of Â£5 with intent to defraud. Discharged on recognisances. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

11. ERNEST ALFRED ABRAHAMS (20) , Assaulting Richard James and stealing from his person an overcoat, a handkerchief and other articles, and 1s., his property.

MR. HAZELLProsecuted.

RICHARD JAMES . I am a tobacconist's packer, and live at 42, Peacock Street, Newington Buttsâearly on the Sunday morning of October 25th I was going along Kennington Roadâabout half a dozen fellows sprang out on me and took me into a doorwayâthey said they would murder me if I made any noiseâthey sat me down and took my coat and boots off and my watch and chain away, and a gold signet ring off my fingerâI was so frightened I ran homeâI did not catch sight of any of their facesâthey were rather roughâI had only a scratch on my armâthis (Produced) is my coat and my watchâin the coat there was a pouch of tobacco and a silk handkerchiefâthey were not in the coat when I got it againâI live about ten minutes' walk from where this took placeâI communicated with the police on the Sunday morning and gave a description of the property I had lost.

ALFRED LONG (Detective Sergeant L.) The prosecutor made a complaint to me, and in consequence I arrested the prisoner on November 3rdâhe was wearing this coatâI told him I should arrest him on suspicion of stealing this overcoat, a watch and chain, a pipe, tobacco pouch, silk handkerchief, and other articles, from a man outside the Lambeth Baths on the early Sunday morning of October 26thâhe said, "That is not my game; I suppose you got the information from somewhere; I bought this coat down Petticoat Lane a fortnight before for Â£1 1s."âthere was nothing in the coat when I arrested him.

HENRY HILLMAN . I know the prisoner by sightâI have not known him very longâI knew him before October 25thâI only know him by going into a coffee-shopâon October 27th he offered to sell me this watchâI bought it from him for 4s. 6d.âhe did not say where he got it fromâthat was in the coffee-shop.

The prisoners statement before the Magistrate. "No violence usedâon October 25th I had been to the Crown concert, Albert Embankmentâwhen it was closed me and some friends walked slowly towards Kennington Baths. All left me bar one. We stood there and had a cup of coffee While standing prosecutor came up He was absolutely drunk. We took

off his coat and threw it on the side of the stall and walked off towards Brook Street. I took it home. Last week when I said I bought it in Petticoat Lane I was in drink. The chap I sold the watch to was the brother of the fellow with me, but he had nothing to do with it. I "kept them myself. I have no witnesses to call."

RICHARD JAMES (Re-examined). I was not drunk on this nightâI did not take my coat off and leave it on the stallâI had never seen the prisoner before.

The prisoner's defence. "If the prosecutor was not drunk, do you mean to say he would not make his report to the police until the afternoon of the next day?âif I had not taken his coat from the stall someone else wouldâthe watch was in the pocket of the coat with a silk handkerchief and a pipe."

Evidence for the Defence.

GEORGE HILLMAN (By theCOURT). I live at 31, Broad Street, Lambeth Walk, and am a van boyâI was at the coffee stall having a cup of coffeeâthe prisoner came up while I was there, then the prosecutor came up helplessly drunk, he could hardly stand on his feetâhe threw off his overcoat and put it on the side of the coffee stallâhe said to the prisoner, "You can have that"âhe started taking his boots off, but fell on his headâthe prisoner picked him up and asked him where he wanted to go, and the prosecutor said, "Penge"âI knew the prisoner when he was working as a potmanâI was not one of the six men who the prosecutor says robbed him.

Cross-examined. I am the brother of the other witness named HillmanâI do not know when the watch was sold to my brotherâI have not seen the watchâI have not been given any money to come here to-dayâÂ£1 has not been sent to me or to my motherâwhen the prosecutor began taking off his boots there was a friend of mine there named Sam Whitingâthe boots were not put on the coffee stall, the coat wasâI do not know what became of the bootsâI did not give evidence at the police court, I was not there at allâafter the prisoner was arrested and brought up to Rochester Row, Sergeant Long and another gentleman came to meâI had never seen the prosecutor before this nightâI have not seen him since till yesterdayâhe was about fifteen minutes taking his boots offâI cannot say if he did take them offâhe was stooping downâthen he got up and fell over, and the prisoner picked him upâI did not see if he got his boots off, because I was in the middle of the coffee stall and the prosecutor was the other sideâI did not see him without his bootsâI do not say that they were ever offâwhen I last saw him he was going towards Kennington Roadâhe had his boots on thenâI went away thenâthe prisoner did not put the prosecutor's coat onâI did not see him do anything with itâI do not know the name of the coffee stall keeperâthe stall is outside the Lambeth BathsâI think he is there every nightâI am not a friend of the prisonerâI did not tell my brother about the story of the coat and the watchâhe did not tell me he had purchased the watchâthe prisoner did not tell me where he found the watchâI was not in his company that night.

SAMUEL WHITING . I am a casterâI work at the British Syphon Company, and live at 103, Tower Street, Lambethâon this night I was having a cup of tea at the coffee stall with my friend the last witnessâthe prisoner came up and had a cup of coffeeâthen the prosecutor came up and took his overcoat off and placed it on the coffee stall, and said to the prisoner, "Here you are, you can have that"âhe started taking off his boots, and he fell over-the prisoner picked him up and asked him where he wanted to goâhe said, "Penge," and he walked away into Kennington Roadâme and my friend leftâI cannot say if the prosecutor had got his boots on when he leftâhe left his coat behind him.

Cross-examined. I did not give evidence at the police courtâI was there with my friendâI was not in the police courtâthe detective went to see my friend on the Saturday night, and my friend told him who I was, and I was told I was to go and give evidence as wellâthis occurrence took place on the 25th, which was a SaturdayâI am not certain of the timeâI did not know the prisoner beforeâI had never seen him beforeâI was there for about fifteen minutesâthe prosecutor was not there the whole of the timeâI do not know how long he was thereâas soon as he came up he went awayâhe was there about five minutesâhe was very drunk, he could hardly stand on his feetâwhen he started taking off his boots he fellâI did not pick him upâI had seen the prisoner that afternoon for the first timeâI next saw the prosecutor yesterday morningâI did not recognise him for certain thenâI am sure of him now.

By theCOURT. He started taking his boots offâI cannot say if he took them offâI was the other side of the stallâI have not been to the coffee stall since, that was the first time I had been there.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was at the coffee-stall when the prosecutor came up speechless drunk; that he took off his coat and threw it on the coffee stall and said, "You can have that"; that he went into the road and started taking one of his boots off; that he asked the way to Penge; that he had his boots on when he went away, but left his coat on the stall, so he (the prisoner) picked it up; that it was not true that he had bought it in Petticoat Lane; that the watch, the handkerchief, and the pouch were all in the pocket of the coat; that he sold the watch to Hillman and gave the other things away, but he did not remember who to; and that he did not do any work, but got an allowance from his mother and other people.

Evidence in Reply.

RICHARD JAMES (Re-examined.) On this evening I had been all round the West to see the sightsâit was Procession DayâI was soberâI did not go to any coffee stall that nightâmy mother was at home when I returnedâshe was in bed, but she heard me come in.

MARY ELIZABETH JAMES . Jam the prosecutor's motherâI heard him come in on October 26thâI did not notice anything unusual in his treadâa pair of his boots were missing next morningâhe is a good and sober sonâhe was 21 last JuneâI have never seen him drunk or the worse for drinkâhe always carried his watch in his waistcoat pocket.

JOSEPH CROSS . I live at 21, Warwick Street and keep two coffee stallsâone of them is at the corner of Lambeth RoadâI was at that one from

10 p.m. to 2 a.m. on October 25thâa coat was not placed on my stall on that nightâa coat might be placed on the wheel without my seeing it, but not on my stallâa man did not come up to my stall speechlessly drunkâthe wheels of the stall are close to the kerb and close to the stall; the counter turns on hinges, it does not touch the wheel at allâa coat could be put between the wheel and the counterâI did not see a man fall down outside my stallâI have never seen the prisoner or the prosecutor before.

By the Jury. The counter of the stall stands off about six inches from the wheelâthere are two wheels.

WILLIAM ENWRIGHT . I am a packer, and live at 40, Turner Buildings WestminsterâI know the prosecutorâI saw him twice on October 25thâat 12.15 that night I left him at the corner of Parliament Street, which is about ten or twelve minutes from the Kennington Bathsâhe was perfectly soberâI had been in his company since 11.30âhe came to the West End Theatre where I am employed, and I saw him thenâI was on duty till 11.50, and I remained with him till 12.15âhe was talking rationally to me.

Cross-examined. I was not here to give evidence yesterday.

GUILTY .â He then

PLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at South London Sessions on October 9th, 1901, and another conviction was proved against him. Seven years' penal servitude.

The Recorder ordered the police to report the case to the Commissioner, so that the facts should be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor, in case he should think it proper to prosecute the witnesses for the defence, for perjury.

12. SAMPSON MORGAN (48) , Unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning the Electrician Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd., and of the directors of that company.

MR. MUIRProsecuted; andMR. YOUNGDefended.

Mr. Young applied to quash the indictment as it was bad, as the defendant was indicted for libelling a publishing company, but only the directors were named in the indictment and not the whole of the company, and referred to Reg. v. Gathercole (2 Lewin, page 237), and submitted that there was no connection in the letter written to Sir John Pender, a director, and the company;THE RECORDERheld that the indictment was good, and declined to quash it. The prisoner thereupon withdrew his plea andPLEADED GUILTYto publishing a libel of and concerning Sir John Pender, and the Jury returned a verdict to that effect.Discharged on recognisances.

NEW COURT.âMonday, November 17th, 1902.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

13. EDWIN PHINEAS PRINCE (43) , Forging and uttering an order for the delivery of a book with intent to defraud.

MR. MUIRandMR. LEYCESTERProsecuted, andMR. WRIGHTDefendedBERTRAM GEORGE JAMES BRANWIN. I am assistant manager to Robert

Phillips and others who trade as the Gresham Publishing Co., Londonâthe prisoner was a canvasser employed by themâit was his duty to obtain orders in writing for publications issued by the firmâhis commission was 20 1/2 per cent., 16 per cent on account, and the balance, at the end of the time, usually at the end of each monthâon August 30th I saw him in the office and he produced these four ordersâ(These were orders from, W. O. G.; W. R. Thornton, and Silas Shales, for books, upon which the first deposit was paid, stating that they were still the company's properly until the whole amount was paid, and were signed E. P. Prince.)âthat is the prisoner's signatureâI believed them to be genuine, and paid him. Â£4 7s. and took this receipt from himâin the usual course I handed these orders on to be enquired about, and I think Mr. Watson did so in this caseâwe wrote to the prisoner, "Without you are at this office to-morrow morning, we shall instruct our solicitor"âthe next day would be September 5thâthe prisoner did not come and I went to his address, which was on our booksâhe had gone away, leaving another addressâI went there and saw him; I said, "You know what I have come about?"âhe said, "I expected you, I know I have done wrong; I am sorry"âI said, "You will have to come at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning and see the manager"âhe said, "Yes; I can't take you in, because my wife knows nothing about the matterâhe came on Saturday, the 6th, and the conversation was addressed to Mr. Watson, who said, "What explanation have you to give?"âhe said "I have done wrong, I am very sorry"âMr. Watson said that he could not entertain any proposal from himâPrince had offered him Â£10 not to prosecute him, and Mr. Watson declinedâI spoke to Princeâhe said, "Two are fictitious and one is not"âwe had not then verified these ordersâI asked him if the former orders he took were good or badâhe replied that two of them were wrong or fictitious and one was genuineâMr. Watson said, "If you have anything to say put it in writing and I will advise my solicitor," and the prisoner wrote something and handed it to Mr. Watsonâthis is it (Exhibit 4)âhe then leftâhe came once or twice afterwards, and I saw himâon September 30th a warrant was applied for against him in respect of these four orders.

Cross-examined. I have been in the company's service since March, 1881, except for a timeâI was also in their service when Mr. Le Barr was managerâhe asked me to resign, and paid me a month's moneyâthe signature should be that of the person giving the orderâI know the prisoner's writing perfectly wellâI doubt whether the signatures to these four orders are all in the same writing, and that writing the prisoner'sâmy impression is that they are not, and I do not think they are all in the same writingâwe send a great many orders away before the collector calls to see whether they are genuineâI made no attempt to induce the prisoner to offer money to settle the matter, nor had I the power to take itâI had ascertained by September 24th that they were bogus ordersâhe was in the employ of the Caxton, and I asked him to come into our service after he had written to meâI suggested that he would he deprived of money by the people he was servingâI knew on September 4th that these were bogus orders, and yet no warrant was issued till October 3rd, because we

were making inquiries about orders he had taken previously at DoverâI had no difficulty whatever in finding his addressâMr. Whitcott's name was mentioned as being the company's solicitor, and Mr. Watson telephoned to him to see if he was there, I thinkâMr. Watson told the prisoner to go to Mr. Whitcott's office and make an appointmentâI do not know whether that was done to see whether the Â£10 would be takenâI went to Mr. Whitcott and explained the matterâI gave the prisoner Mr. Whitcott's address, 110, Cannon StreetâI know of no case of publishing companies permitting bogus orders to be sent in by the travellers and replaced by genuine ordersâI have been prosecuted, and convicted and finedâthe prisoner was in my service at one timeâI never had bogus or forged orders in my possessionâthis (Produced) is a book which I make entries inâthey are in my writing the year before lastâI have written "Forgery, no order" against the order of Mr. Ridge by one of our canvassersâI could not afford to prosecute in that caseâI do not remember allowing a good order to be substituted for that, and paying the commissionâI do not remember the case of Davis on December 8th, 1900, or writing "Forgery" against itâI believe such was the case, but I had thousands of orders, and I do not rememberâI have possibly written the word "Bad" thereâthe word "Forgery" is written against an order given to Branwin on November 16th, 1901âI have not prosecuted in any of those casesâI did not receive the money back in all of themâthe word "Forgery" in my writing is against the name of Peel on January 12th, 1901âthose sums are all by the same canvasserâthis order of Kelly's is marked "Not known at address," and Marshall's is marked "Not known at the George address"âwe had travellers named Wood, Chivers, McDonald, Jones, Barcough, Barnes, and Simmons, temporarily in the employâI cannot remember whether any of them delivered forged ordersâwe had not many fictitious orders brought by our travellersâagainst Williams' name is written "Not known at Old Kent Road Station," that is the address given by the canvasserâ(Other names marked "Not known" or "Gone away" and "Denied giving order" were read to the witness.)âWood's order is marked"Under age, no use"âduring this time the prisoner was in our serviceâJames Sidney Malcomb was in our employâI was not in the employ in Mr. Marsham's timeâI do not know a man named Bridger who was thereâthe prisoner did not tell me that he could not get the Â£10 and ask for further timeâhe asked me about it, and I referred him to my solicitorâI had no power to arrange itâI am not prosecuting.

Re-examined. I had no power to decide whether a man was to be prosecuted or notâit was in January, 1898, that I was prosecutedâI was lined Â£5âI was then in the service of my present employers, and I was taken back the next day into the same employment, and am still in their service.

CHARLES HENRY WATSON . I am the London district manager of the Gresham Publishing Companyâthe first I had to do with this matter was receiving the report from ChampionâI saw the prisoner in my office on the Saturday and spoke to him about thisâhe said that he was sorry, that they were forgeries, and pleaded that he was not responsible, and that

he would make reparationâI told him I could do nothing without legal advice, and that anything he had to say must be put in writingâI did that to get rid of himâI saw him two or three times after that and he still pleadedâI reported the matter to Mr. Phillips the first time he came, and it was left to him to advise what was to be done.

Cross-examined. I will swear he used the word "Forgery"âI was not asked about it beforeâwhen the Â£10 was mentioned I altogether refused to entertain the suggestion of compromiseâour sending him to our solicitor was a device for getting rid of the man, and to get rid of him Mr. Branwin and I went to Mr. Whitcott on the matterâwe did not meet the prisoner downstairs and tell him to go up and see Mr. Whitcottâno application to prosecute was made till October, because we had to satisfy ourselvesâwe got the evidence before we prosecutedâwe did not give the prisoner time to get the moneyâwe afterwards went to another solicitor.

GORDON CUMMING WHITCOTT . I am a solicitor of 110, Cannon Street, and usually act for the Gresham Publishing CompanyâI saw the prisoner about September 7th or 10thâhe said that he wished to pay Â£10 if the prosecutors would take him back into their serviceâI did not make him any promise that I would advise my clients to accept money.

Cross-examined. I had two or three interviews with himâthe question of payment was not discussed on each occasionâI did not get instructions to take Â£10âI saw Mr. Watson and Mr. Branwin, but not Mr. Phillips or Mr. Blackie.

ROBERT JOHN CHAMPION . I am a collector and exhibitor for the eastern district of the Gresham Publishing Companyâit is part of my duty to enquire into the ability to pay of persons giving ordersâit may be a day afterwards or it may be by rotationâthese four orders were handed to me on September, and I went round next day by special instructionsâin one case there was no such name in Bow Lane, and the second case was not knownâThornton was not known, and there was no such number in the roadâI reported accordinglyâI left the orders with a lady, a school teacher, and I had not found them when I gave evidence before the AldermanâI found them the following day.

Cross-examined. It was well known in the office that persons in my position were wont to call to see if the persons were responsibleâit might be a month or it might be a day or two afterwardsâI do not know that many bogus orders or forged orders have been given and the travellers kept on afterwardsâI have been there nine yearsâI was satisfied that these orders were fictitious and made a report to the company on September 2ndâI cannot suggest why no proceedings were taken before OctoberâI had made an exhaustive inquiry on September 1st or 2nd.

THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I have been an expert in handwriting for many yearsâI have seen Exhibit 4 and also the four orders which are said to be forged, and assuming Exhibit 4 to be the prisoner's writing, I believe the four orders to be his writing; the signature to one is not his ordinary writing, but it is hisâthe others are in his natural writing.

Cross-examined. The difference is that one is a little straighter than the other; it is in the same writing as the other part of the order.

JOHN WISE (City Detective-Inspector.) I arrested the prisoner on a warrant charging him with obtaining Â£2 15s. 3d. by false pretences from Mr. BranwinâI read it to himâhe said, "I have tried to square it for Â£10"âhe took five letters from his pocket and handed them to me, and sent his wife upstairs for another.

ROBERT PHILLIPS . I am a partner with others in the Gresham Publishing Company, and exercise control over itâI have known of bogus orders being given without a prosecution, but it is so long ago that I forget; it was three or four years ago, but we do not permit the handing in of bogus orders; we invariably prosecute.

Cross-examined. If I had my books here I could tell you of five or six cases in which we prosecutedâthere was one at Nottingham, and the result was eighteen calendar monthsâI do not take an active part in prosecutions, I leave them in Mr. Watson's hands.

GUILTY â Twelve months' hard labour.

14. HENRY WILLIAMS (28) , Unlawfully possessing a mould for coining.

MR. WILKINSONProsecuted.

GEORGE PRIDE (Police-Sergeant G.) On the night of September 25th I was with other officers in Wentworth Street, Spitalfields, and kept observation on 107, Wentworth Street, and saw the shadow of a man and woman on the blind of the second floor front roomâI went away for assistance, and returned and went up to that room; the door was closed but not fastenedâI there found Harriet Summers who was tried and convicted last Session (See Vol. 136, page 993)âI found this mould on a tableâthere was a fire in the grateâI also found a spoon with molten metal in it quite hot, sixteen florins, hot, on a shelf, a small piece of antimony, and some plaister of ParisâI arrested the prisoner on October 29th and told him the chargeâhe said, "I do not know anything about it; I know the woman, but I was not there"âgoing to the station he said, "How did Harriet Summers get on?"âI told him, and there was a conversation; he was taken to the station and charged.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I got into the room about eleven o'clockâthe mould had a wet bandage round itâI do not know how long the mould would take to set before it was taken outâI found the metal alongside the fireplace, but not on the hearth.

ANDREW KYD (Police-Inspector G.) On the night of September 25th I was in Wentworth Street and saw the prisoner near the middle of the street, opposite No. 107âPride and other officers were thereâI did not enter the house till laterâI saw the prisoner behind the two officers; he stopped to look, and I saw him pass, and when they had gone he walked down a side street, and I saw nothing more of him that night.

Cross-examined. I am sure you are the same man; I know you by your dress and by your features.

JOHN KENWARD (Police-Sergeant S.) I was in Wentworth Street

about eleven o'clock with other officers, and before they entered the house I saw the prisoner in the middle of the street, and as they entered he stopped to look at them, and then walked awayâI did not see him again that nightâI saw him last Tuesday week at the police court with other men and identified him.

Cross-examined. You were walking down the centre of the roadâI did not see you in Great Eastern Street on October 21st, and therefore did not arrest you.

CATHERINE HANDS . I live at G. Colesworth Street, Spitalfields, and am deputy lodging house-keeperâon September 26th I let a room to Harriet Summers at 7s. a weekânone of the things were then in the room.

Cross-examined. There was no light in the passage of the houseâthere is no door to open to go upstairsâthere were only a few pictures belonging to an old lady in the room.

HARRIET SUMMERS (In custody.) I am undergoing a sentence of six months' imprisonment in Holloway Prison on my conviction last SessionâI have known the prisoner three months and have lived with him as his wife at three lodging housesâwe went from a lodging-house at Bloxham Street to Lexham Street, and back to Spitalfields on the Monday nightâI took a room at 107, Wentworth Street on September 25th by myself between two and three o'clock, and went away and returned about five o'clock with the prisonerâI then went out to get some coal, leaving him there sitting in a chairâI went out again to get some tea and sugarâI saw nothing done while I was in the room with himâhe was not there when the police officers came and found the thingsâI went out at nine o'clock and came back a little after eleven, and he was not thereâI had not seen him while I was outâI received a letter while I was at HollowayâI do not know the prisoner's handwritingâI have never seen him write.

By theCOURT. The prisoner is the only man who was with me at 107, Wentworth Street.

LOUISA EDWARDS . I live at 11, Lipton Street, Notting Hill, and let lodgings at No. 17 in that streetâthe prisoner lived there with Harriet Summers for about eight weeks.

Cross-examined. I never saw you doing anything wrongâif you cleaned the spoons with silver sand I should not have to clean them.

Re-examined. I was not in the habit of going to the roomâSummers never allowed me to go in; if I sent for my rent she came and paid meâthe rent was 6s. 6d.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of coin to H.M. Mintâthis is a mould for florins, and all these florins were made from itâI saw some metal in a ladle and some in a saucepan.

Cross-examined. The mould would take about an hour to dry, but if you made it too hard it would possibly splitâ(The letter to Summers was read at the prisoner's request; it was signed"Bill," and said "I saw the detective go to the house the night you were arrested; I could not have done you any good if I had gone upstairs; they did not want you, it was me they wanted. I sent you out while I did the work.")

Prisoner's defence. I know nothing about that letterâI suspect it is

from the same people who gave information to the police, and I know nothing about the goods found in the place; the woman says she left me at 9 o'clock and it is almost impossible for anybody to make a mould in that timeâI have been in trouble for this sort of thing, but am not guilty nowâthe man who did it sent me away on a fool's journey while he did it.

GUILTY .âHe had been convicted at Worcester Assizes of a like offence, after a previous conviction, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, nine months of which were unexpired , and three other convictions were proved against him all connected withcoining.â Five years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT.âTuesday, November 18th, 1902.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15. WALTER KELLY (21, a soldier) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully attempting to have carnal knowledge of Florence Hopwood, a girl under the age of 13. Twelve months' hard labour.

16. MORRIS FELDMAN (28) , Unlawfully disposing of certain property obtained on credit, within four months of his bankruptcy and not paid for, with intent to defraud his creditors. Second Count, Unlawfully transferring certain property with intent te defraud. Other Counts charging other offences under the Debtors Act.

MR. A. GILLProsecuted; andMR. CLARKE HALLDefend d.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger of the Record Office of the Bankruptcy CourtâI produce the file in the prisoner's bankruptcyâthe petition was presented on October 9th, 1901; the Receiving Order was made on October 14th, and the adjudication took place on November 6th.

THOMAS LAIDLAW . I am an examiner to the Official Receiver in bankruptcyâI conducted the proceedings in the prisoner's bankruptcyâthese are the notes of the public examination signed by the prisonerâthe value of the timber belonging to him up to September 18th was stated to be Â£2,473 17s. 5d.

JOHN GREIG . I am clerk to Arthur Charles Bouner, the trustee in the prisoner's bankruptcyâthe liabilities are returned by the debtor at Â£4,842, of which Â£4,614 10s. 1d. is described as in respect of unsecured creditorsâhe describes his net assets as Â£2,240 10s. 6d., being a deficiency of Â£2,601 15s. 11dâof these assets I have realised only Â£149âÂ£633 of the assets are described as good book debts, but I have only recovered something under Â£2 in respect of thoseâwith regard to the five pianos and organ mentioned in his assets, I went to his place of business at 22, Commercial Road, and on demanding them I was informed that they were included in the sale of his businessâin his preliminary examination he stated that one Gaverin held a share in his business at 22, Commercial Street for a consideration including bills for Â£350âI did not get thoseâI got Â£115 from Gaverin in discharge of those billsâthat was part of the Â£149 which I recovered.

Cross-examined. I do not know what goods were transferredâI know

that it is the subject of this charge, and that they were transferred for the sum of Â£600âin addition to the Â£115 paid by Gaverin, he also paid Â£45 for costsâthe book debts are considerable, but the majority of the people are not there to sueâI called upon a Mr. Cotton, whose name was in the books, and as a result he gave evidence at the police court on another charge, but the case broke down on his evidence, as it was different from what he told me at the interviewâwe have not proceeded against him for the debt, because the trustees are advised that they cannot prove delivery of the goodsâin the case of Metzic, whose name also appears as a debtor for Â£394 7s. 9d., he is a bankrupt, and the trustee's claim against him was rejected, as we were unable to prove the claim.

Re-examined. I have endeavoured to realise the prisoner's estate to the best of my ability.

FREDERICK ARMITAGE . I am a solicitor of Monument Station Buildingsâin September, 1901, I received instruction from Joshua Levy to prepare an agreement between him and the prisoner for the sale of timber at Spital Street; this is it, (Read) "October 1st, 1901, between Morris Feldman of 18a, Spital Street, and Joshua Levy of 2 and 4, Albert Workshops, Great Pearl Street. The vendor shall sell, and the purchaser shall purchase for the sum of Â£550 all the timber and other stock in trade of and belonging to the vendor, in connection with his business as a timber merchant, as the same is now carried on by him at 18a, Spital Street, aforesaid"âthat agreement was executed by both parties in my presenceâI also prepared an assignment of the lease on the same dayâthe purchase money was Â£600, Â£550 for the business, and Â£50 for the lease was paid at my officeâI saw the money pass, and endorsed the receipt on the back of the agreementâI noticed that there was a bankruptcy clause in the lease, and pointed it out to both parties, and I asked the defendant if there wasâany likelihood of his becoming a bankrupt, and he shrugged his shoulders, as if it was too ridiculous to mention.

GEORGE LANSBURY . I am a Director of Burton, Brine, and Reed, timber merchants, of 32, Rivington Streetâthey were creditors for timber in the prisoner's bankruptcyâon October 8th I called at Spital Street and found that the name of "Feldman" was no longer up; there was "Spitalfields Timber Company instead"âI had had no notice from Feldman that he was disposing of his businessâI looked around and formed the opinion that there was from Â£1,000 to Â£1,200 worth of timber there, wholesale price.

Cross-examined. On August 7th I received a bill drawn by Mrs. Feldman for Â£60 to be handed to Messrs. Levy when recoveredâthe object of that was to secure payment for some goods that Messrs. Levy had had from us, so that they could pay us for a parcel of walnut wood which is still in the docksâthey gave me the bill to collect for them, and about Â£33 was to come to us for goods which we had supplied to Messrs. Levy, and which is still at the docksâa writ was issued for the money, but it was withdrawn at Messrs. Levy's request.

By theCOURT. We were to bring an action for all parties concerned who were interested in the bill.

Re-examined. Messrs. Levy asked me to take the bill in payment for the

goods we had supplied them withâit had nothing to do with the prisoner.

HENRY CHARLES HUDSON . I am managing director to Turner and Hudson, Limited, of 31, Ivy Street, Hoxtonâwe were creditors in the prisoner's bankruptcyâon August 2nd, 1901, we supplied him with timber valued at Â£13 10s. 10 d.; on the 12th with timber valued at Â£170 6s. 2d, and on the 15th with timber valued at Â£149 14s. 9d.âwe received bills in respect of that maturing after the bankruptcyâwe have never been paidâon October 7th I went to 18a, Spital Street, but could not find the prisonerâI looked round and saw about Â£1,200 worth of timber including Â£100 worth of our goods.

Cross-examined. I believe a Mr. Mount joy valued the timber at Â£180, but that estimate was absurd.

EDGAR ALFRED SMITH . I am a traveller to William Pharoh, a timber merchant, of 108, Bishopsgate Street Withinâon August 2nd we supplied the prisoner with timber, value Â£43 12s. 11d.âwe were not paid for thatâwe were creditors in the bankruptcy for Â£375 13s. 1d., but that was the last transaction we had with himâin October I went to his premises, but could not see himâwe had had no notice of the transfer of his businessâthe value of the timber in the yard was over Â£1,000âthat included about Â£20 worth of ours.

Cross-examined. During the time we did business with him, about three years, we supplied him with between Â£4,000 and Â£5,000 worth of timber.

ALFRED HERBERT OLIVER . I am manager to the Timber and Builders' Merchants' AssociationâI was instructed to make inquiries' about one Slomovitch, but have not been able to trace him.

Cross-examined. I went to the Victoria Restaurant and inquired of the manager there, but he said he could not remember a gentleman of that name having stayed there.

HARRY SMALE (Detective Sergeant.) On October 3rd I saw the prisoner at Floria Street, SpitalfieldsâI told him I held a warrant for his arrestâhe said, "All right, I will go with you"âat the station I read the warrant to him, and he said "All right."

GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT, Tuesday, and

FOURTH COURT, Wednesday, November 18th and 19th, 1902.

Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.

17. JAMES WALTERS (61), WILLIAM HUGH O'FALVEY (45), GEORGE SLINGSBY (62), SLINGSBY SCOTT (33), and PERCY DOWNING SEYMOUR (43) , Conspiring to obtain from Isabella Tudor Frere and others, cheques for Â£30 and other sums and a bill of exchange, with intent to defraud. Other counts for unlawfully converting the proceeds of cheques.

ELIZABETH TUDOR FRERE . I live at Thornlands, Netley Marsh, Hampshireâin January last I received this circular from the "Whitehall Exchange," 31, Charing Cross (Exhibit 32a), signed"J. Walters, Secretary," recommending cheap priced shares in the Klerksdorp, Transvaal, and South African Exploring and Cold Storage CompaniesâI replied that I would purchase shares on the condition that I was liable for the sum invested and no more, and that the profit would accrue in a few daysâI enclosed a cheque for Â£30, which was paid by my bank in due courseâI afterwards received Exhibits 85 and 86, offering more shares at 5s. 6d. to 6s. a share, and signed"J. Walters, Secretary," and enclosing sold notes for Â£32 with commissionsâat the bottom of the notes was printed, "It is distinctly understood that you incur no further liability beyond the amount of cover"âI sent Â£32 for investment and Â£2 14s. charges, by this cheque to J. Walters, crossed The Royal British Bank, my bankers being the London and Provincial Bank at Liss, and received acknowledgment, Exhibit 91, signed J. Walters, also Exhibit 92, dated February 14th, for more shares at 12s.âI sent a wire, and afterwards a letter, enclosing a cheque for Â£30âI afterwards received the circular as to 150 Niekirk shares at 14s. 10 1/2d., Â£112 10s., and 4s. coverâI did not know what cover meantâI received the contract noteâthe cheque was paid by my bankâthe correspondence produced ensued, in which I expressed disappointment, and in which Walters states on February 28th that "owing to the weak Bull Account" there had been delay, that the average would be Â£21 17s. 6d., and that there would be a "carrying over"âI did not know what the terms meant-in reply to Walters' advice in Exhibits 105 and 106 I sent my cheque for Â£21 17s. 6d. for the purchase of the four different kinds of South African shares namedâI did not know what they wereâI had seen the terms "Charters" and "Rhodesians" in the papersâthe writing on several of the circulars and letters sent to me was in the same hand, including the letter signed "M. Walters," which states that Walters was seriously ill, that even his life was despaired of, and said, "I cannot give information respecting his business," and those promising settlement, one "as soon as possible"âone letter states that to ask for money on a postcard was an indictable offence, but I did not write such a postcardâin Exhibit 122 he asked me to accept this bill of exchange, which I accepted, believing it was a promise to pay me money which I was going to acceptâ[This was on the London and Provincial Bank for Â£35, and dated London, June 11th, 1902, at three months, and signed "Geo. Slingsby," which was obliterated, and the three months was altered to six weeks; it was endorsed, but the name appeared to be scratched through.]âI had no recollection what name was on itâThese directions came with the bill: "Accepted, payable it [blank] Bank, I. T. Frere,' write across, putting in name of your bank"âI received Exhibit 123a from the Whitehall Exchange, offering 150 haresâI replied and stated that in my letter of the 18th I had made the alteration to six weeks, as I considered the three months that had already assed might have been enoughâI wanted the money at onceâI do not know what I meant, but I used a word not applicableâI altered the bill of six weeks because I wanted my money sooner, but something I remember

writing has not been readâI also received Exhibit 125, offering shares in the "Toilette Requisites Company," and this second Bill of Exchange and the other correspondence produced followed in Exhibits 126 to 130, making excuses for delay, and asking me not to send postcardsâI received Exhibit 131, signed Clement G. ScottâI had seen the prisoner Scott while staying in Londonâ[This was headed"Clement Scott and Co., Outfitters, 101, Brixton Road," and offered large interest on money invested.]âI answered that, and received a letter enclosing a reference to Dr. Ullathorne, 63, Queen Victoria Street, to whom I wrote, and got a replyâI received Exhibit 135 from Clement G. Scott, stating, "I have just had an offer of goods for the spring trade," and asking for Â£25âI sent this cheque for Â£26 10s., which has been paid by my bankers, and is endorsed"Clement Scott"âExhibit 137 is the receiptâI saw Scott by appointment in the Brixton Road, for him to take my measureâI was thinking of employing him as a dress tailorâat the time I parted with my cheques to the Whitehall Exchange Company I believed they were carrying on a genuine business as stock brokers, and that the shares referred to had been bought and sold to me.

Cross-examined byMR. O'CONNOR. I have sent another man named Scott some money to invest in the CityâI have never seen himâhe paid me with a good profit for what I first sent him, the second transaction is still pendingâI believed Scott to be an honest manâI employed his wife to do some millinery for meâI never gave Scott the order for the costume; he simply took my measure, as I do not live in London, and I said, "If you will come and see me where I am staying I shall be glad for you to take my measure so that you may have it at a future date if I should want a costume"âthat was several weeks before I advanced him the moneyâthat was not the consideration for the moneyâI understand "carrying over" to mean instead of paying as promised, say, in the middle of April you pay at the end of itâI have not now nor since this case been instructing brokers; I thought this was enough for the time.

Cross-examined by Walters. This was not my first transactionâI did not expect the shares to be delivered to meâI expected the profits to be sent to me and my money returned intactâyou said in your letter that you were going to settle, and then in another sentence asked me to accept a bill for Â£35âI thought that was part of what you owed meâI knew the shares were valueless, and that if I did not get money I should not get anythingâI refused to accept them.

Re-examined. The Scott I previously did business with, so far as I know, had nothing to do with the prisonersâthis is the second bill I received from. George Scott and Son, and is for six weeks instead of three months.

RICHARD HALLETT TAMSETT . I live at 19, St. Edward's Road, SouthseaâI look after my wife's business mattersâI received the letters produced as exhibits from the Whitehall Exchange, offering shares at Â£11 10s. and Â£11 5s. in "Henry Denny and Sons, Limited," and signed"J. Walters, secretary"âI sent the cheque for Â£169 17s. 6d. in payment for 200 shares and feesâthat has been paid through my bank and endorsed"J. Walters"âthe correspondence produced followed, including that signed by"J. S.

Slingsby"âthere were various excuses stated; one was that Walters had been knocked down by an omnibusâI never got any part of my money backâI fully believed the statements in the circulars and letters sent.

Cross-examined by Walters. I instructed my solicitor to apply for shares, and they were in negotiation at the time of your arrest.

Cross-examined byMR. O'CONNOR. My solicitors sued the Whitehall Exchange Co.âthey requested the return of the money at the time that the police interferedâthey asked for the Denny shares or the moneyâthe security of Armstrong was suggested, but it was worthless, and I refused to accept itâmy solicitors advised me to prosecute.

ERNEST VICTOR BROWN O'BRUCE . I am a clerk in the registry office of Henry Denny and Sons, 3, LothburyâI have part charge of the register of shareholdersâI have no knowledge of the Whitehall Exchange nor of J. Walters producing any transfer of shares in the company, nor of their having held shares in itâthe name of Tamsett is on the books.

GEORGE PARKES . I am a timber merchant of 4, The Ashes, Chester Road BirminghamâI replied to this telegram, Exhibit 11, to Seymour of Temple Gardensâafter further correspondence I agreed to take from Mackenzie, of the Shares Bureau, 31, Charing Cross, twenty-five ordinary and twentyfive preference shares at 22s. 6d. each, in William Jameson, LimitedâI received this telegram, signed Mackenzie, "Will send transfer as soon as executed," and after a letter I sent a telegram to Mackenzie asking for the transfersâafter further correspondence I got the name of the transferor as James Murray, 101, Brixton RoadâI sent this cheque for Â£56 5s.âit has been paid by my bankâI received this letter of August 2, signed P. D. Seymour, stating that he was trying to find a buyerâI wrote for the shares and got the replies signed "P. D. Seymour"âI never got the sharesâI sent the transfer to Jameson's officeâthat was returned to me with a communicationâI communicated with the policeâI had no knowledge of William Mackenzie nor what he had to do with Seymour, nor that Seymour was connected with the Whitehall Exchangeânor of the connection between Walters and Mackenzie.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. I did not know that O'Falvey or Mackenzie was negotiating the sharesâI would not have complained of James Murray being the transferor so long as he had the shares.

Cross-examined by Walters. I had no communication or dealing with the Whitehall Exchange.

DAVID WILLIAMS . I am manager of the Islington branch of the Royal British BankâMackenzie, who is O'Falvey, had an account thereâI produce a certified copy of it; also of that of J. Walters and of that of"G. Scott and Son," which the prisoner Slingsby had, on the credit side of which is entered on August 2nd a cheque for Â£50âthis is the cheque endorsed "John Mackenzie" and "George Scott and Son"âon the debit side five cheques are drawn out in the names of Slingsby Â£3 17s. 6d. Mackenzie Â£5, Williams Â£5. Self (Slingsby) Â£10, and Seymour Â£26, making Â£49 17s. 6d.âanother 2s. 6d. would make the Â£50.

Cross-examined byMR. O'CONNOR. The Â£50 cheque was paid in about

closing time on SaturdayâSlingsby had no benefit, he only changed the cheque for the others.

ALEXANDER CHARLES PETERSEN . I am cashier at the Royal British Bank, 6, Duncannon Street, Charing CrossâO'Falvey banked there, under the name of John Mackenzieâa cheque book was supplied himâI produce a certified copy of his accountâit was opened by a payment in of Â£19 which the bank advanced on shares deposited on July 19thâon August 1st there was 5s. 6d. to his creditâwe took that for chargesâhis cheques since have been dishonouredâwe communicated that fact to him twiceâthis cheque drawn by John Mackenzie in favour of O'Falvey is the last one we honouredâit was paid through the London and County Bank.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. After our first letter I think we sent one cheque back within one or two days.

JOHN COBURN MACDONALD . I am a cashier at Parr's Bank, Limited, Charing CrossâI produce a certificated copy of the prisoner Percy Downing Seymour's account thereâhe went under the names of Percy Downing Seymour and Percy DowningâI find on August 7th on the debit side a payment to the Royal British Bank of Â£30, and payments to O'Falvey on 16th Â£2, and on 21st Â£1; on August 8th I find "Notes Â£20" on the credit side and cash Â£3âthe numbers of the notes are 21441â4, of June 9th, 1902.

Cross-examined byMR. FITCH. I first knew Seymour as Percy Downing Seymour, trading as Percy Downingâthe account is still openâthe total amount paid in from the end of November, 1900, to the end of the year appears as Â£645, and up to the end of June this year as Â£921.

JOHN HAMPDEN WHITE . I am clerk to a company at 66, Victoria Street, which has the letting of Temple ChambersâSeymour was a tenant of rooms there at Â£105 a yearâwe distrained in June lastâwe got part of the rentâthe quarter to Michaelmas is still owingâthe tenancy is not cancelledâthis is the agreement for the tenancy from November 5th, 1901.

FREDERICK PICKETT . I am lift porter at Temple Chambers, where Seymour had officesâthe name of "P. D. Seymour" was put up, and afterwards "Watson, Armstrong, Wade and Co."âI have seen O'Falvey thereâhe asked for Mr. Seymourâhe came three or four times a week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. There are a good many people in the Temple ChambersâI work the lift and answer inquiriesâI am on the ground floor.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. O'Falvey might not come every weekâI do not think he was away a monthâI should not call him a regular visitor.

Cross-examined byO'CONNOR. I never saw Slingsby or Scott to my knowledge.

ALFRED GEORGE PEACE . I am manager of the Charing Cross Branch of Parr's BankâI produce a list of cheques returned on Percy Downing Seymour's account at that branchâthe second cheque is dated May 9th, 1902, to Harrington for Â£52, which was returned marked, "Not provided for."

Cross-examined byMR. FITCH. There was an account of Percy Downing Seymour and of Percy Downingâthe same man drew on bothâhe traded

as Percy DowningâI knew him first as Percy Downing SeymourâI cannot say whether the turnover was Â£5,000 in a year, but we regard an account from the balance point of viewâone cheque was returned because the endorsement was irregular.

Re-examined. I stated before the Magistrate that the balance averaged Â£75 to Â£100.

SARAH HANNAH SUDBURY . I live at Lawn House, Oak Wood, Wakefieldâon August 19th, 1902, I received the letter signed John Mackenzie, asking the price of 260 shares in Jamison, LimitedâI sent the letter to a friendâI wrote agreeing to sell 150 shares at 25s. a shareâthis is a copy of my letterâa few days afterwards I received this letter, signed P. D. Seymour, of Temple Chambers, offering to sell 200 shares in Jameson, Limited, at 22s. 6d. eachâon August 24th I got this letter, signed P. D. Seymour, inquiring the name of the person who was selling the shares at a lower figure than he was offering themâI heard no more of Mackenzie.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. I was and am willing to part with 150 sharesâI heard indirectly that Mackenzie was in custody.

JAMES DOOLEY . I live at Glen Villa, H edge End, Botleyâon August 19th I received this letter signed, John Mackenzie, asking me to sell shares in Jamison, Limited, at 25s. a shareâI replied and got this letter from P. D. Seymour, Temple Chambers, stating that he was instructed to sell 200 shares in Jamison, Limited, at 22s. 6d., of which company I am a shareholderâI replied stating that I had only preference shares.

MALCOLM GEORGE HORTON . I am manager for Mr. J. Quinton, a tobacconist, of 31, Charing Cross Roadâthat is Old Scotland YardâI have an office on the ground floorâin May, 1891, Walters and Slingsby came to look at offices thereâI received an agreement signed by Slingsby to take part of the premisesâI know O'FalveyâI also know Scott as MackenzieâI handed him lettersâthey had one roomâthere was furniture in itâI do not think it was there in August, 1902âO'Falvey paid me the rent once in the shopâwhen they were not in the office I knew they were to be found in the public houses just at handâSlingsby told me who Mackenzie was when a letter came for him.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. O'Falvey came to Charing Cross about twice a weekâletters came for Mackenzie just about Quarter Dayâthe name John Mackenzie was a little smaller and was put on the top over the name "The Whitehall Exchange ": "The Mines Bureau" was added, also Scott's name on paperâthat might have been in JuneâI have a separate side door to the shop, and did not see them go in to the office.

Cross-examined byO'CONNOR. I have known O'Falvey this yearâI knew him by appearance about Christmas timeâI first heard his name in a public house about the beginning of this yearâScott came when the place was taken in 1901âhe came every dayâI discovered his name in November, when letters came into the shop for Mackenzie, and I took them in the office and asked Slingsby about themâbefore the premises were engaged by Slingsby they were used for a tailoring business for about

nine monthsâSlingsby had a part partitioned off as an office by a low partition across the roomâit was not afterwards extended to the ceiling.

Cross-examined byMR. FITCH. I never saw Seymour at the office.

GEORGE REEVES . I am a clerk to Messrs. Clutton, who act for the Ecclesiastical CommissionersâNos. 67 and 101, Brixton Road, are part of their propertyâNo. 101 was taken from August 11th by Waltersâthe references he gave were C. F. Ellis and Co. and G. and S. ScottâSlingsby came with WaltersâScott's reply was that he had known Walters some years, that he was highly respectable and quite capable of paying his rentâan agreement was entered into and Walters took possessionâat Christmas, 1901, Scott took the house 67, Brixton Road, giving as references Mr. Wood and Mr. O'Falveyâin consequence of replies from both references the premises were let to Scott and were adapted and opened as a shopâthe rent to Lady Day was paid through the Sheriffâwe received no rent since thatâthere are still curtains in the windows and somebody may be living there, but the water is cut off.

FREDERICK UPSON . I am a clerk in a firm at 38, Nicholas Laneâthe prisoner Scott executed this agreement in my presence in the name of Walter ScottâI saw him write that name.

THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting, of Holborn ViaductâI have examined the documents in this case with the proved signatures and writings of the defendantsâExhibits Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 have Walters' signature; also five endorsements to Tamsett's chequesâthe signature "J. Walters pp. J. S." is Slingsby's. (This stated that Mr. Walters had been thrown down by an omnibus.) Also the initials in No. 10âI spent a great many hours in examining about 100 documentsâI am looking at a duplicate copy of my notesâthese are the actual notes I made at the timeâthe signature, to Nos. 12 and 13 are Seymour'sâthe signatures to Nos. 13, 14 and 17 to the letters signed"John Mackenzie "are O'Falvey's writingâthere is a signature like Walters' writing across a stamp which is difficult to decipher because it is written "Waters"âI do not know the signature "James Murray, 101, Brixton Road"âthe body of the document is in O'Falvey's writingâNos. 23, 24, and 25 are in Seymour's writingâNos. 82 to 85 from 7, Whitehall Exchange, to Miss Frere are typewrittenâthe sold note, No. 87, has the signature of J. Waltersâthe endorsement on the cheque for Â£2 14s., No. 90, and No. 91, the acknowledgement of the cheque, and No. 92 are Walters' writingâNo. 96, the sold note of the Niekirk shares and the endorsement on the cheque for Â£30, and Nos. 101, 102, and 104 are Walters' signaturesâNo. 105, "J. Walters pp. W. W.," is not Walters'âthe cheque No. 107 for Â£21 17s. 6d. is endorsed by Waltersâthe sold note, No. 108, is signed by WaltersâNo. 109 is not Walters' writing, but the signature to No. 114 isâNo. 118 is all in Slingsby's writing, and No. 119, which states that Walters is suffering from brain fever, is the same writingâI am not certain about No. 120, the letter signed "M. Waters"âNo. 122 is type-writtenâin No. 123 the writing underneath looks like Slingsby'sâthe endorsement is Slingsby'sâthe endorsement "Scott and Son" on the second bill is similar to Scott's writingâNo. 125, as to toilette requisites, is type-written, and the writing

of the initials is not clearâNo. 125 is Slingsby's writingâÂ£130 is typewrittenâthe endorsement, "Clement Scott," in No. 131, is Slingsby Scott's writing, also the signatures on the cheques Nos. 122 and 125, 136 and 137âNo. 140, signed"Jackson," is back-handedâI do not know itâI found several letters in the same writingâthat is very often effectual in disguising writing.

ROBERT FULLER (Police Inspector A.) In consequence of information I received, I kept observation on 31, Charing Cross, WhitehallâSeymour used that placeâI have kept the place under observation for about twelve monthsâI obtained a warrant for his arrest on August 29thâI went to Temple Chambers on that day at 3.15 p.m.âI found the names of P. D. Seymour and Armstrong Wade and Co. on the doorâa boy was in chargeâI did not find Seymour thereâat 8.30 p.m. the same day I went to Upper Richmond Road, Putney and saw himâI told him I had a warrant for his arrest for being concerned with O'Falvey in obtaining money from Mr. ParkesâI showed him letter No: 151, and said "This is your signature which you admitted to me in 1900 was yours, and it is similar to the signature on a letter to Mr. Parkes, and I shall arrest you on suspicion"âhe said "Yes, but I did not intend to defraud Parkes; it is the last thing I should do, 'evil communications corrupt good manners'; the shares that Mr. Parkes' father had he got rid of through me."âI saw Walters on August 23rd in the Golden Fleece wine bar, Queen Street, CityâI said, "I am Inspector Fuller, I hold a warrant for your arrest for being concerned with Slingsby and others in defrauding Mr. Tamsett"âhe said, "That has been dealt with by my solicitors"âScott, who was with him, said, "I know nothing about the Tamsett matter; I admit I had the money, but that is a debt; I am not Mackenzie"âI found some letters on him addressed to John Mackenzieâhe said he was going to take them to John Mackenzieâthey were taken to the station and chargedâthey did not say anything in answer to the chargeâI have kept observation on 31, Charing Cross, from time to timeâI have seen Walters, O'Falvey, Slingsby and Scott using the placeâI went there after the arrest and searchedâthere was no furniture thereâthere were a lot of books, papers, and circulars of the Whitehall Exchange thereâI found letters from Miss Frere and Mr. Tamsett there, but none from Mr. Parkesâthe letters were lying about on some benchesâthe place had been divided into two roomsâthere were also some old books headed with some tailoring business, showing that an order had been booked from O'Falvey for a suit of clothes, and one for Waltersâthere were some books relating to Stock Exchange matters, and two or three entries in the name of the Whitehall Exchangeâthere was the International Courier there with an advertisement of the Whitehall Exchange in it, also Walters' pass bookâon Walters I found a letter and envelope from Mr. Sudbury, addressed to John Mackenzie, 31, Charing CrossâI also found on Walters a letter addressed to G. Slingsby, and some blank cheques, and a diary for this yearâthere was something about a fall from a 'bus in it in June, and there were some notes showing payments to O'Falvey and Scott, and to Slingsby, and Clement Scott, and also showing the receipt of a cheque

from O'Falveyâthere is a note on December 13th of Seymour's name and his address at Putneyâthat is in Seymour's own writingâat Charing Gross I found a draft document signed J. Jackson, addressed to Miss Frere, and also a draft letter said to be in Slingsby's writing and signed "F. Walters"âall Miss Frere's letters and the replies to them were on a fileâI also searched Temple ChambersâI found a number of circulars there elating to William Jamison, Limited, a draft letter to Mr. Parkes, and a County Court summons at the instance of Cope and Co. for electric fittings.

Cross-examined byMR. ELLIOTT. I never saw Seymour at the Whitehall Exchangeâhe does not appear in the cases of Miss Frere or Tamsett at all, only in the case of ParkesâI should doubt that Seymour dealt in 2,000 shares during the nine months before his arrestâI do not know Mr. ChurchâI made inquiries of Mr. Billingham, the managing director of the Company.

Cross-examined by Walters. The letters to Mackenzie were in the outside part of the office at Charing Cross; the Whitehall Exchange letters were mixed up with the other letters; most of the recent papers were in the inside office.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. The name of Mackenzie was in different type on the doorâthe letters addressed to him were opened before I saw them; I did not open themâI did not find that Mackenzie had dealt in 3,000 shares during the last yearâhe may have done his correspondence at his home at Mitcham, and merely used the office as an address, but I saw him at the office daily in the company of the othersâthey did not spend much time in the office; they were always in and outâI cannot say if I found any of Mackenzie's writing at the Whitehall Exchangeâsome unpaid cheques were found on himâthey may have been taken up by himâI am not aware that there was a transfer of thirty fully paid shares in the Watson, Armstrong, Wade Company found on him.

Cross-examined byO'CONNOR. When I arrested Scott, I think he said. "I know about Tamsett"âI also charged him with defrauding Miss Frereâhe said, "I had the money, but I did not intend to defraud her"âthe letters found in his possession were about shares, and had been addressed to 31, Charing Crossâwhen I arrested Walters I charged him with defrauding Miss Frere and Emil Rimbod, and I mentioned several other matters to himâRimbod was defrauded of Â£10 7s. in connection with advertisement fraudsâScott said it was not fraudulentâI had been investigating Miss Frere's matter long before the arrestâI went to 31, Charing Cross, disguised once in connection with complaints which had reached meâI think I only saw Slingsby thenâhe consulted Walters on important mattersâtheir office was only three or four doors from mine,âI had a lot of information from my own officers, and I had complaints dailyâthere was only one book there in reference to any tailoring business.

WILLIAM WOMACK (Detective-Sergeant.) New Scotland Yard is close to 31, Charing CrossâI arrested O'Falvey on August 23rd, at midnight, on Mitcham Commonâhe lived near thereâI asked him if he knew me, he said, "Oh yes, very well"âI told him I held a warrant for his arrest

for obtaining various sums of money from different personsâhe said, "I do not know anything at all about it"âI mentioned Walters and SlingsbyâI went with him to his houseâI found some documents on him.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. I had seen him at Charing Cross on numerous occasionsâI cannot contradict his statement that he only used it as a postal addressâwhen I charged him on August 23rd I mentioned the Parkes' case to himâI do not know if it is mentioned on the warrantâI searched his houseâI handed the papers I found there to Inspector FullerâI cannot say if there was anything referring to the Tamsett and Frere casesâI found at his house letters addressed to 31, Charing CrossâI do not know if he did his writing at homeâI found some letter paper there headed 31, Charing Crossâhe did not make any difficulty about my seeing anything.

JAMES BERRETT (Detective.) I have kept observation on 31, Charing Cross since about August 31stâat first I saw Walters and Slingsby frequently at that addressâ"The Whitehall Tailoring Company" was up at firstâI next saw Scott there about two months after the others, and then O'Falvey about five or six months laterâthey used to go there and stay sometimes an hour or two, then go to the neighbouring public-houses, leaving a paper on the door saying, "Return in ten minutes."âlatterly the office was not kept open at allâit was visited by Scott for lettersâhe was there for about two minutes in the morning and then went away againâon July 3rd I went to the officeâI saw Slingsby and Walters thereâI was with BaxterâI said to Slingsby, "You know us, don't you"âhe said "Yes,"âI said, "We have called about a commission obtained from a man by an swering an advertisement in the Whitehall Exchange"âhe said, "Oh yes, the firm have received a letter from Mr. Dounie; the matter is all right, and the letter has been answered; I deny any responsibility; a Mr. Wright and I, met a man named Snell in the Clarence; Wright gave an order, I have seen the advert in the paper; I have never caused any advert. to be inserted in respect to any business or property; the adverts. Kent, Scott, and Son, and Madam Elsey, 67, Brixton Road, are not mine; I have nothing to do with the business, and know nothing of the advert you speak about"âhe then pointed to Walters at the end of the roomâI went to him and he said, "I repudiate all knowledge of the advert."âA copy of the International Courier was thereâhe picked it up and showed me an advertisement of the Whitehall Exchange, and said, "You do not think I should accept this; 'Whitehall' is spelt without the 'h'"âI saw Scott there, I said to him, "I want to speak to you Mr. Mackenzie," because I thought his name was Mackenzieâhe said, "I deny I am Mackenzie; you know better than that, Madam Elsey is my wife; I take all responsibility for her and myself; she is not living with me now; it is only a debt, let them sue me in the County Court; I have nothing to do with the people here, you know, the Whitehall Exchange"âon August 26th, at 7.30 p.m., I arrested Slingsby at 101, Brixton Road; he was ill and I did not take him into custody; I read the warrant to himâhe said, "We have had no money from the man Rimbod"âhe was kept under observation at his house, and was also under the care of the divisional surgeon for about

three weeksâon September 11th he was taken to Cannon Row Police Station, and charged with being concerned with the others in the Whitehall Exchange fraudsâhe made no reply.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. O'Falvey went to the Whitehall Exchange Offices about six months after they were openedâhe went there about June, 1901âI did not know that his name was Mackenzie, the difficulty was to find out who Mackenzie wasâI never saw O'Falvey at the offices when I called there, but I have seen him when he was coming out with the others, and I have seen them divide money about 10 p.m., all pretty well drunk and rowing with each other about moneyâI know now that Mackenzie and O'Falvey are the same personâI saw O'Falvey use this office before Mackenzie was put on the door.

Cross-examined byO'CONNOR. I got suspicious of the Whitehall Exchange when first I saw the name upâthe Whitehall Tailoring Company was up firstâI noticed "Whitehall Exchange" up about a month afterwardsâit was posted on the top of the Whitehall Tailoring Company and concealed itâthere was also a letter-box on the side of the door, with Slingsby's name on it, spelt "Slingsbie"âthat was also removedâthe Whitehall Exchange and the Whitehall Tailoring Company were not being carried on at the same time, because the name of one was covered by the otherâI did not call there every dayâI often had a look at the door when the prisoners were outâI saw them daily and hourly in the public-houses, they knew me quite wellâI saw O'Falvey dealing out the money and then leave the others, and then wait for the last Brixton 'busâI saw him giving money to Slingsby, Scott, and WaltersâI only saw that occur on one occasionâI do not know the date, it was in the street, and about a couple of months before the offices were closed.

Cross-examined by Mr.FITCH. I did not see Seymour there on that occasion.

Re-examined. We watched 31, Charing Cross in consequence of the shady customers that Slingsby used to be with, and from enquiries, we knew for a positive fact that he had been bound over for fraud.

ByMR. TUDOR. That was long before the Whitehall Tailoring Company was up.

ALBERT YARE (Detective). On August 22nd, at 9.45 a.m., I saw Scott coming from 67, Brixton RoadâI followed him to 31, Charing Crossâhe went into the office, where he remained about a minuteâhe came out and went to several places, including the Woolpack public-house in Fore Street, Cityâhe came out and was joined by Waltersâsome papers passed between themâthey waited about 15 minutes and then went into the WoolpackâI saw them together again the same evening in St. Martin's Laneâon August 23rd I saw Scott go from Brixton Road to 31, Charing Crossâhe went into the office and stayed a minute or two, and then went to the post office in the Strand, then to Farringdon Street, and then went into the King Lud, in Ludgate Circus, where he remained about a minute and came out with Waltersâthey went to the Golden Fleeceâon the way there I saw papers pass between themâat the Golden Fleece they were arrested by Inspector Fuller.

Cross-examined byMR. O'CONNOR. They were together the whole time on the second day after they left the King LudâI could not see what the papers were which passed between them.

CHARLES GOODACRE (333 D.) On July 16th I arrested Walters in the name of Davy, on a committal warrant for the non-payment of a fine and costs, imposed at Bow Street Police-court on April 9th and he was imprisoned for six weeksâI arrested him in the office at Charing Cross; Slingsby was with himâwhen I told Walters what I was going to do he took a cheque-book out of a drawer, wrote on the cheques, and then put it back in the drawer, and said to Slingsby, "You can be getting on with those."

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. I have not seen O'Falvey in the office.

WILLIAM JOHN ROBERTS . I am examiner to one of the Official Receivers in the London Bankruptcy CourtâI have here the file in the bankruptcy of James Walter Davy in 1889âthe receiving order was made on April 16th and the adjudication on May 13th of the year he was adjudged a bankruptâhis liabilities were Â£2,553, and his assets were Â£50âno dividend has been paid and he is still undischargedâon the file there is a reference to a bankruptcy in 1877 at ExeterâI do not think there was any discharge from that bankruptcyâthe liabilities were Â£8,549 and the assets Â£3,249âhe was also adjudicated bankrupt on May, 9th, 1902, the receiving order is dated April 22ndâI went to Brixton Prison and saw Walters, and he admitted he was James Walter Davy, and said he had used the name James Walters, and he also admitted his previous petition in 1889.

Cross-examined by Walters. In the last bankruptcy the petitioning creditor is Walter Leslie Gibbsâhe is a stockbrokerâhis return is for Â£142 9s. 4d., the amount of a judgment recovered against you in the King's Bench Division, on February 11th, 1902.

T. H. GURRIN (Re-examined). The signatures in documents 152 and 153 are in Seymour's writingâI think 153a is in O'Falvey's writingâ118a and 119a are in Slingsby's writingâ156 is in O'Falvey's writing.

Cross-examined byMR. TUDOR. I should not recognise the name of Parks on this list of names as being in O'Falvey's writingâI think No. 144 is in hisâwriting.

Cross-examined byMR. O'CONNOR. I do not recognise the writing in Exhibit 120âthe writing in No. 118a looks like Slingsby's writing, but it is not in his usual writingâI may have made a mistakeâI think that Nos. 119, 121, and 22a are all in Slingsby's writing.

The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. O'Falvey says: "I submit there is nothing in the evidence to associate me with the charge as to the advertisements, and as to the rest I reserve my defence." Scott says: "I have had nothing to do with the share transactions nor with any business with the Whitehall Exchange, and I submit there is no evidence to the contrary."

Slingsby says: "I had nothing to do with the Whitehall Exchange except under Mr. Walters." Walters says (Part read only):"The other matters are merely matters of account which were in course of negotiation with the solicitors. You would not have heard of that, Tamsett's case, but for the fact of the advertisement charge being placed against me.

This Frere's business, the cheques were sent for cover on Stock Exchange dealings. I did not act as a broker, but dealt in stocks and shares as a principal. At Easter Miss Frere's cover had run off There was, however, an amount of Â£30 which had been guaranteed by myself that she should be repaid whether the stocks went against her or not. As a matter of fact the stocks she dealt in were all South African, and no person could guarantee how the market would go. I intended to pay her the Â£30, and for that reason, I suppose, that bid for Â£35 was drawn that she should have the 150 West African shares, West African Corporation, which had stood at 14s. each and as high as 18s., and I should have sent them on to her but she refused to receive any shares. As concerning the Bill afterwards, I scarcely know anything else."

T. H. GURRIN (Re-examined). To the best of my belief Exhibit 143 is in Slingsby's writingâI do not know that it is quite in his ordinary writingâthis letter I believe to be in Slingsby's writing and signed by Walters.

Walters, in his defence on oath, said that he had had no intention to defraud; that he had not had any transactions with Seymour except trying to raise money for him, and had only seen him three or four times; and had no transactions with O'Falvey except lending him money.

O'Falvey, in his defence on oath, said that he never had anything to do with the Whitehall Exchange; that he traded as Mackenzie; that he never participated in any money paid by Tamsett or Miss Frere; that he was a dealer in the shares of William Jameson, Limited, to the extent of some thousands; and that he had no intention to defraud.

Slingsby, in his defence on oath, said that he took 31, Charing Cross to carry on a tailoring business; that he divided the place off into two compartments; that Walters occupied one, and they were distinct; that he had nothing to do with Miss Frere's affairs; and that he did not know anything of the Tamsett matter, or with the Whitehall Exchange.

Scott, in his defence on oath, said that he took 67, Brixton Road, to set up a tailoring business; that he had nothing to do with the Whitehall Exchange; that he had never had any of Tamsett's or Parkes' money; that he called at 31, Charing Cross, in order to take Slingsby up to town and home, as he was ill; that he did not pass as Mackenzie, and that O'Falvey had never given him money.

WALTERS, GUILTY .â Twelve months' imprisonment.

SCOTT, GUILTY .

The Jury recommended him to mercy on the ground that he was influenced by the other prisoners. Six months' hard labour.

O'FALVEY, GUILTY . He then

PLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at this Court in June, 1890, and another conviction was proved against him. Two years' hard labour.

SEYMOUR, NOT GUILTY ; but the Jury censured him for indiscretion. SLINGSBY, GUILTY . Two convictions were proved against him. Nine months' imprisonment.

18. GEORGE DIGBY PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining 18s. from Henry Burgoyne Matthews by false pretences, having been convicted of conspiring to defraud at this Court in June, 1898. To enter into recognisances.

LOUISA EMMA INSOLE . I have known the prisoner over eleven years; he came to lodge at my houseâthe deceased came with himâshe was about 33 years old when she first cameâshe had a child about six months oldâI did not know who was its fatherâshe always called the prisoner father, and I understood she was his daughterâthe baby was sent to an asylum at Dartfordâthe deceased had another child born at St. George's Infirmary about twelve months' ago; it only lived a short timeâthe prisoner and the deceased lived alone for about twelve monthsâduring that time they quarrelled a great dealâthey lived upstairs on the top floor; I lived downstairsâI was only in their room about six times, but I heard themâI had no idea they were living as man and wifeâon Friday, October 10th, about 8.30 p.m., I saw the deceased come homeâI heard a noise outside my front room; I saw the prisoner trying to push the deceased upstairsâat the top she cried, "Someone go for the police, he-will murder me"âhe had beaten her before thatâI sent for the police; they went upstairs and spoke to the prisonerâthe deceased came down to meâshe left about 9.15 with another young woman, a friend of mineâI did not see either the prisoner or the deceased again that nightâon October 16th a police officer left a summons for the prisoner about 10.30 a.m.âthe prisoner came in two or three minutes afterwards and I gave him the summonsâhe said, "What is this for?"âI said, "I do not know"âhe then opened it and said. "It is for an assault"âI said, "It might be through that affair on Friday night"âI saw him on October 17th at about 11.30; he seemed very much upset and was crying bitterlyâhe said, "I have lived with you over eleven years; you think you know Emily but you don't; she is a false cat; she has deceived me from top to bottom"âI said, "Emily is old enough to take care of herself, and you must try and get some work and do the best you can"âhe paid me 3s. rent on that day; Emily had always paid it beforeâshe worked very hard and the prisoner very littleâhe said he would sell off the home and go into the workhouseâI saw him again that night at 8 o'clockâI did not see him again until he was in custodyâI heard him go out the next morning at 6.50; I heard him say"Good morning "to my daughter.

Cross-examined. Before October 17th I had never seen the prisoner cry during the eleven years I had known him; he seemed very much upset after the summons cameâhe appeared to be crying because she had gone awayâhe said. "What have I done for her to go away like this?"âI said I did no knowâhe appeared to be very fond of herâon the occasion of the assault I saw him trying to push Emily upstairsâI did not know he was a sailor; he worked as a labourer at the docks sometimes.

HENRY LORYMAN . I live at 39, Marsham Road, BermondseyâI knew Emily Barrow; she used to work at the same place as I didâI believe sh earned 12s. a weekâI left that place about August lastâI never saw her

between that time and Octoberâon the evening of October 10th I saw her at MillwallâI accompanied her near to Red Lion Street, where she livedâI saw the prisoner thereâhe said, "Who are you?"âI said, "A friend," and walked awayâI had never seen him before.

JEAN CORKER . I am the wife of Frederick Corker of 7, Wapping WallâI knew Emily Barrow fourteen or fifteen years before her death, and also the prisonerâI understood them to be father and daughterâshe came to my house about 10 o'clock on Friday night, October 10th, and remained there until the 18th, the day she diedâI saw the prisoner on Saturday, October 11th, outside my houseâhe came up and asked for his wifeâI said, "There is no wife of yours here, Mr. Barrow"âI told him to go away, and he wentâabout 7.50 I left home to go to Fish's, where Emily Barrow was employed; the prisoner was outsideâhe followed me all the way grumbling about Emilyâafter going to the factory I returned home, and he again followed meâI went with Emily Barrow to the Thames Police Court the same dayâhe came again to my place at night, asked for Emily, and tried to force his way inâI resisted him and called my son, who got him outâhe came again on Sunday morning, October 12th, and said, "Will you ask Emily to give me the key of the room door?"âI said, "You have a key of your own"âhe said, "In the scuffle yesterday I lost it"âI said, "You will find the key at home; Emily sent it to Lizzie Dye"âthe next week Emily Barrow went to work; on Saturday, October 18th, she left home at 10 minutes to 8, and I did not see her alive again.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was quite peaceable when he asked for the keyâthe scuffle he referred to took place on the Friday evening the week before.

EDWARD SAMUEL CORKER . I am a warehouseman and live at 7, Wapping Wallâon Friday, the 11th October, I was at homeâbetween eight and nine o'clock there was a knock at the door; my brother James answered itâhe came back and said Mr. Barrow was at the door, and I went and saw himâhe asked me if he could see EmilyâI said that she was outâhe then asked for my mother, and I told him she was outâhe wanted to wait and see her, and I told him to wait outsideâhe then wanted to speak to my father, but my father would not see himâhe then tried to force his way in and I threw him outâhe came back and shouted through the keyhole that we should all know of it before twelve o'clock to-morrow.

JOHN CHAMBERLAIN . I am an engine driver and live at 31, Wapping Wallâabout 8 a.m. on October 18th I was in Glamis RoadâI knew Emily Barrow by sightâI saw her on the opposite side of the road going the reverse direction to meâI passed herâthe prisoner was running behind herâhe was about 100 yards away, and before he reached her he began to walkâI passed them and then heard a screamâI turned round and saw the deceased with her hands upâshe appeared to be on the half turn Facing the prisonerâhe was in the act of striking her with a knifeâthe blow was in the direction of the upper part of her bodyâI should say the knife produced was the knifeâI immediately ran towards them; another man had already seized the prisonerâI seized the wrist of the hand in which he had the knife, and called to the other man to take it out, which

he didâwhen the woman was first struck she ran across the road pursued by the prisoner, striking her as they were runningâI saw about three blowsâThey fell togetherâwhile I was picking her up the prisoner said, "She is my wife; she is a false woman"âI took her to the hospitalâthe police had not then arrived.

Cross-examined. From the time I heard the scream I saw everything that happenedâbefore the Magistrate and Coroner I said I believed the blow cut her handâthat was the only blow I saw struck.

EDWARD TAYLOR . I am a dock labourer of 5, Bruton Street, Ratcliffâon Saturday morning, October 18th, I was in Glamis Road about eight o'clockâI saw there a young woman whom I now know as Emily Barrowâshe was on the opposite side of the road to me but going the same way, about fifty yards in frontâthe prisoner was running behind herâwhen he got within twelve yards of her he slackened up into a walkâhe struck her in the back with his right hand and she half turned roundâI could not see if he had anything in his hand or notâshe ran across the road with her hands up, screaming, and just before she got to the kerb he struck her again in the right sideâI rushed up, and a seafaring man there handed to the witness Dodkin a knifeâat that time the prisoner and the woman were on the pavementâI held the prisoner downâhe kept saying that the woman was his wifeâwe then went to take him to the station, and on the way met a police officerâat the station the prisoner said, "I did it, I did it; you do not know all."

Cross-examined. I did not see the knife until I got him upâshe was trying to get away from him, stumbled, and fell, and he fell alsoâI cannot say if he fell on top of herâI cannot say positively if the blow I saw struck hit her; if she had her hands behind it might have struck them.

Re-examined. She fell face downwards.

THOMAS DODKIN . I am a labourer of 30, Gill Street, Limehouseâon October 18th, about 8 a.m., I was at the corner of High Street and Glamis. Road, ShadwellâI heard a cry from the woman I now know as Emily BarrowâShe was running across the road pursued by the prisonerâhe had a knife and struck her in the back and she fell face downwardsâI ran across to where she fellâthis is the knife (Produced)âI took it to the police station.

Cross-examined. I saw the knife before I ran across the roadâthe prisoner struck her with itâthere are no railings where she fellâat the time the blow was struck the prisoner was between me and the womanâI was about forty to forty-five yards offâwhen I got there the prisoner was being held on the ground by other people, and the woman was on the pavement, but I cannot say the exact spotâI saw the prisoner run across the roadâI did not see him fall.

By theCOURT. I am clear that I saw the prisoner strike the woman in the backâthere was no one between me and them to prevent my seeing thatâI then saw her fall.

ROBERT PHILIP TUTCLIFFE BRANSON . I am resident medical officer of the East London Hospital for ChildrenâEmily Barrow was brought

there about eight o'clock on Saturday morning, October 18th; she was then deadâI made a superficial examination of the body at the time, and found two wounds at first, one in front of the chest between the first and second ribs on the left-hand side, and another in the back to the right of the spineâshe was left until Dr. Grant, the police surgeon, came, and together we made another superficial examinationâwe found five woundsâin the afternoon, by the Coroner's order, I made a post-mortem examination; there was one wound in the front of the chest on the left-hand side between the first and second ribs, on the surface of the skin, about three-quarters of an inch long; it was a punctured wound, and we traced it down to its end in the main artery and heart, which it had woundedâfrom this wound there had bled into the chest about two pints and a-half of blood; there were two wounds behind, one about the level of the third rib just to the right of the spine, which had entered the right side of the chest apparently without wounding the lungâit was of the same character as the one in front, and there was about eight ounces of blood in the side of the chestâthere was another small punctured wound behind just above the left buttock, quite a superficial oneâthere was a wound above the left ear, where the ear joins the scalp, of a similar character, as far as its appearance on the skin went, as the one on the front of the chest; and the upper two wounds behind it passed down for about one and a-half inchesâthere was lastly a superficial wound on the back of the left hand which laid bare the tendonsâthe wounds were such as would correspond with the knife produced, and might very well have been made by itâthe wound in, front of the chest was the cause of death.

CHARLES GRAHAM GRANT . I am police surgeon of divisionâI examined the body of the deceased with the last witnessâI have heard his evidenceâin all essential particulars I agree with itâafter the injury to the chest, in my opinion, it would have been possible for the woman to have run across the roadâthe knife was handed to me by the police; it had been newly sharpened and was covered with oilâthere was a moist, red stain upon, it having the appearance of blood; on testing it I found it to be soâthe knife fitted the wounds and corresponded to the incisions; in the body.

Cross-examined. It would be an unusual thing for a woman to be able to run across the road after such a wound had been inflicted in her chest; if there had been no evidence of the time or method in which it was inflicted, I should have expected it to have been inflicted after she crossed the road and before she died.

Re-examined. In my opinion it was quite possible for her to have crossed the road after the wound was inflicted.

GEORGE CURTIS (30 H.R.) I was on duty at Shadwell Police Station on Saturday morning, October 18thâI received a message, and on going out found the prisoner in custody of some menâI arrested him, took him to the station, and charged himâhe said, "This will end it all now; all I want is a rope round my neck"âon searching him I found a summons and a note book.

THOMAS DIVALL (Police-Inspector H.) On October 18th I saw the prisoner at Shadwell Station at 9.30âI told him he would be charged with the murder of Emily Barrowâhe said, "Yes, thank you," then paused, and said, "Yes."

FREDERICK WENSLEY (Police-Sergeant H.) On October 18th, about ten o'clock, I received the prisoner in custody at Arbor Square Police Stationâhe said, "This has been brought about by another woman who wanted to get her away from me; we had a quarrel, she left me, and then summoned me for assualting her; I am sorry it has happened, but she is out of trouble now, and I shall soon be the same."âhe afterwards said that her name was Coates.

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisonerâat one time he was in the Navy, but was invalided out on account of varicose veinsâhe then joined the merchant service, which he left in consequence of some accident, resulting in his losing three fingers of his left hand.

Evidence for the Defence.

JAMES SCOTT . I am medical officer at Brixton PrisonâI have had a large experience in seeing prisoners in cases of this kindâon Monday, November 17th, I saw the prisoner thereâhe told me that at times, owing to illness, he was confused and scarcely knew what he was doing; that he suffered a great deal at times from varicose veins, which, he said, caused him great pain (he also suffers from an affection of the stomach); that at times he suffered from severe pains in the head, and when he was harassed or had pain, or worry, or trouble, he became very confused in his mind, and lost power over himselfâI think he said he had a sunstroke some years ago when in the Navy, and that when a boy he fell down a well fifty feet deepâI made inquiries whether he had any family history in relation to insanityâhe said his brother was for some time in an asylum, but he could not give me any particulars or dates, and that his mother had been out of her mind, but he could not give me any definite particulars of that eitherâhe said that when he committed the crime he did not know what he was doingâhe handed me a written statement in which he stated that he had bought 14 lbs. of charcoal with the intention of committing suicide; that he had ignited it in the room, but had not closed the apertures sufficiently, and that had made him more confused in his mind.

Cross-examined. It was not until Monday last that he made the statement with regard to his mother and brotherâwhen he mentioned about the charcoal I asked him if the fact had come out at the previous inquiries, or if he wished any witness called to prove itâhe said he did not know how it could be proved unless the police had information of its being found in the houseâapart from these statements I have seen nothing in his condition or manner upon which I could form the opinion that his mind was affectedâI saw no symptom of mental aberrationâin my opinion he is absolutely saneâI saw nothing to the contrary.

By theCOURT. I saw nothing in his state to indicate that he did not Know right from wrong.

21. JAMES WILLIAM TYLER (27) and WILLIAM TOMLINS (18) , Breaking into the shop of Charles Petre with intent to steal. TYLER PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. HARDYProsecuted.

WILLIAM FOSTER . I am junior clerk to Messrs. Field and Co. at Peninsula House, Monument YardâI heard a crashing of glass on Friday last about 6 p.m.âI went on the roofâa lad came with me, but he ran back againâI saw two men looking out at a windowâI asked what they were doing thereâthey said they were only looking roundâTyler jumped out at the windowâI claimed him and tustled with himâhe kicked me and broke away and got through a wallâthen I caught Tomlinsâwe struggled; he got awayâI saw Tomlins the same night in the cellsâI have no doubt about him.

Cross-examined by Tomlins. I did not stop you in the street.

BERTRAM BROWN . I am one of the firm of Field and Co.âlast Friday I was in my office about 6 p.m.âI heard a crashing of glassâI went into our warehouse and called one of the men back whom I saw between the office and the lavatory in the basementâI asked Foster to go on the roof with another lad, and went to the back, as the only way of escape for anyone to drop off thereâI noticed that a man had dropped from the fenceâI chased him as far as from this Court to St. Paul's, and into an empty buildingâhe fell on his back and started kickingâI called to a young man to give me a handâTomlins is the manâI never lost sight of him.

ERNEST DELAMORE (864 City). I was on duty on Friday last about 6.15 in Hart Laneâfrom information received I took Tomlins to the premises of Messrs. Petre, where I saw TylerâI sent for another constableâthe prisoners were taken to the police station and chargedâTyler said, "Very good"âTomlins made no reply.

GEORGE STAINER (City Police-Sergeant 39.) I examined Mr. Petre's premises shortly after 6 p.m. on FridayâI found ah entry had been effected by climbing the fence from Lower Thames Street and breaking a pane of glass about 4 feet square; an attempt had been made to force a drawerâI found this iron in a revolving shutter and this knife on the roofâboth had been used; the knife to open the windowâthe window-sash was closedâthe putty was removed with the knife, and the glass, 4 feet square, taken outâhalf of the glass had fallen inside and half outside.

FREDERICK BESANT . I am manager to Mr. PetreâI left the premises about 5 p.m. on Friday, having closed the placeâwhen I went back the next morning I found a window pane out, and that a drawer had been tampered with which contained van tickets which are used by the porters to get goods from the vansâTyler was in our employ about 2 1/2 months.

Tomlins statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing about

this affair, and I know nothing about this man whatever." He repeated this in his defence, and said that he was never there at the time.

TOMLINS. GUILTY .â Twelve months' hard labour each.

22. JOHN NICHOLLS (35) and JOHN GARRETT (39) , Stealing 189 lbs. of dead fish, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company Mr. J. P. GRAIN and MR. KERSHAWProsecuted;MR. MOSES appeared for Nicholls; and MR. LEYCESTER for Garrett.

DAVID WARDER (Chief Detective-Inspector, Great Northern Railway). On October 9th, I was with other officers in the neighbourhood of Royal Mint Street Depot at 4.40 a.m. in consequence of information I had receivedâI entered truck 8784 which had arrived from Grimsby during the nightâit is described as a box truck, because it is closed in, and has a doorâI and the other officers rushed to itâthe door was openâthe prisoners were in the truckâNicholls was taking fish from the top of one kit and throwing it into another kit, which we afterwards seizedâGarrett stood with a wooden hoop in his hand the hoop is placed over the canvas to secure itâI noticed a plaice on the floor of the truck alongside the kitâI said to the prisoners, "What are you doing here?"âNicholls said, "There is one loose"âGarrett said, "Nicholls asked me to help him"âI told them that I should detain them for stealing a quantity of fish from various consignments, the property of the Great Northern Railway Companyâthey came out of the truck thenâNicholls said, "This kit is unentered," referring to the kit we had seized, and into which he had thrown the fishâit had a label addressed to G. W. Hooker, Fishmonger, St. Luke's, E.C., Mint Street StationâI told him that it could not be unentered, because three kits were consigned to Hooker thereâI sent for the waybillsâI examined the kits in truck 8784âunder the address on the label was "From G. E. Pegg, fish and ice merchant, Grimsby"âthe kit would go back there in ordinary courseâthat kit was dryâon the top was plaiceâit was weighed by another officer in my presenceâthere were 189 lbs. of haddocks and 27 lbs. of plaiceâI examined the other kits in truck No. 8784âI found nineteen of the kits consigned to Hitchcockâtwo of them had the canvas cut, two were loose or slack, that is not full, apparently some had been taken out and the canvas replacedâhaddock had been taken outâfish coming to the Mint Street Depot is the property of the Great Northern Railway until it is delivered to the proper consignee.

Cross-examined byMR. MOSES. The truck was the last but one at the arches end of the platform, and the third from the office endâI began to watch about 4 a.m.âthe trucks were then in positionâI did not see Nicholls till we rushed into the truckâthere are three checkers, Nicholls, Garrett, and Howâthey come on duty for a month at a timeâthey have other duties in connection with this particular fishâwe were watching outside the station opposite the bankâthere is a policeman's box in the station at the entrance gate and about 30 yards from the public wayâthere is always someone on duty there, and at different parts of the stationâthe checker goes into the truck with a light hand-lamp, and sorts the packages

to the different consignees, but that is not difficult, they are generally packed together, and he has another man in the truck, to put them on a barrowâthere is a man in charge of the truck, and he has what men he wantsâ30 or 40 men may pass by the trucksâthe delivery of the fish is hurried as much as the men canâthe fish trains are late sometimesâthe checker's duty at Grimsby is to shut the truck, and anybody going in would probably be caughtâI know that all Hitchcock's fish were haddocks, but there was plaice in the truckâI only saw that one plaice and that was put there almost instantaneouslyâthe checker moves the fish if he cannot get help, but the kits move easily on their heads and do not want pullingâhoops and canvases come off: it is the checker's duty then to replace the fish and to secure the kitâI swear it was a plaice and not canvas in Nicholl's handâthere were plaice that morning consigned to Samuel Isaacs in boxes which could be easily prized open.

Cross-examined by Leycester. If the kit got damaged or the canvas got torn it was Nicholl's duty to mend itâthere was no impropriety in Nicholls asking Garrett to help himâthere are policemen to watch so that no fish is smuggled out, and if a man goes out and appears bulky the police would rub him downâGarrett has been with the Company thirteen yearsâup to about August he was not suspectedâin August we suspected the prisonersâGarrett has borne a good character.

Re-examined. We serve a number of fishmongersâMr. Grudgington comes nearly every day to pick up his consignmentâa number of our vans also deliver to consigneesâa pass is required at the gate for carts other than those of the Companyâthe consignments to Isaacs were in boxesâthey were all plaiceâGarrett's employment that morning was in another part of the yardâthe empties are returned to Grimsby without, altering the labelâthe consignments to Hooker that day were three kits of skate.

GEORGE ROBUS (Detective Office, Great Northern Railway.) On October 9th I was watching with Warder about 4.40 a.m.âI rushed with him into truck No. 8784âI saw Nicholls when we entered, throwing a fish from a kit which had the canvas cut across the top of a consignment of haddock into a kit on his left with no canvas on, but which had Hooker's label with the consignor's name, Pegg, of Grimsby, on itâWarder said to Nicholls, "What are you doing here"âNicholls said, "There is one broken"âGarrett had a hoop in his handâWarder said, "What are you doing?"âhe said that Nicholls had asked him to lend him a handâI examined the canvases in the truckâthree had been tornâI weighed the fish from the kitâthere were 189 lbs. of haddock and 27 lbs. of plaiceâthis is the label in Hooker's name on itâNicholls said it was a kit for HookerâI turned the waybills up and found three kits invoiced to Hooker, and going back to the bank I found those had been taken from the truck,âand placed on the bank intactâI said to Nicholls, "There are only three kits entered to Hooker here, they are on the bank"âNicholls examined the labels and satisfied himself that there were three kits for Hooker and made no further remarkâI told Nicholls that the fish he was throwing into the dirty kit with Hooker's label on it, were stolen fish, and that he was

making the kit up, that the label was old and the kit was a returned emptyâGarrett stood by and heard what was saidâhe said nothing.

Cross-examined byMR. MOSES. Occasionally kits are in the van which are not entered in the waybillâthen it is the checker's duty to enter themâhe has to go through the van to find out whether there are any kits unenteredâI began to watch at 4 a.m. outside the stationâI saw Nicholls go into the second truck from the arches, No. 8784, about five minutes before we made the rushâI cannot say how many kits were in the truckâI found nineteen kits of Hitchcock's fish, besides other fishâI do not think there were fifty; possibly there were twenty to twenty-three, or more, I did not count them.

Re-examined. I found this iron on the bank opposite the truckâit is not the company's property; it is used to open casesâa hammer would answer the purposeâno package was broken to allow the fish to fall on the floorâthere was dry dirt on the kitâwhen the kit comes from Grimsby it is wet and cleanâIsaac's fish had been taken away.

WILLIAM BLACK I am in partnership with G. E. Pegg, fish and ice merchant, of Grimsbyâon October 8th I consigned to Mr. Hooker three kits of skate weighing 45 stoneâthat was all I sent him that dayâI consigned no haddock or plaice to him.

NATHANIEL CHASE .âI am a checker on the Great Central Railway Company at Grimsbyâon October 8th I received from Mr. Pegg three kits of fish consigned to Hooker, Royal Mint Street StationâI made out the consignment noteâthey were placed in van 9527.

GEORGE WILLIAM HOOKER . I am a fishmonger of 128, Lever Street, St. Luke'sâon October 9th, I received from Mr. Pegg three kits containing 45 stone of skateâI had no plaice or haddock consigned to me that dayâthe label was similar to this producedâmy address is at the bottom and the empty is returned without alterationâwe do not trouble to take the label off or put another onâI receive consignments from Pegg two or three times a week in kits.

ALFRED HITCHCOCK . I am a fishmonger, of 79, New Road, Bermondseyâon October 8th Mr. Crawford, of Grimsby, invoiced to me nineteen kits of haddock of 13 stone each, which I received on October 9thâfive or six were in a slack conditionâI had the fish weighedâthere were 13 stone shortâthe kits were about half full, you could see where they were taken off.

Cross-examined byMR. MOSES. I did not weigh all the fishâthey had to be delivered at four different places.

EDWARD GEORGE CRAWFORD . I am a fishmonger at Grimsby Docksâon October 8th I consigned to Mr. Hitchcock nineteen kits of haddock addressed to 97, New Road, Bermondsey, Londonâthe kits were all bran spanking new and covered with new canvas on the topâthe kits were full.

Cross-examined byMR. MOSES. The fish are packed in iceâwhen the ice melts the canvas gets slacker.

GEORGE COWLEY . I am a checker of the Great Central Railway at Grimsbyâon October 8th I loaded at Grimsby nineteen kits of fish con-signed

to Hitchcock in van No. 8781âI also loaded nineteen other boxes of fishâthey were in good condition.

CHARLES KENT (776 City.) I was called and took the prisoners into custody on October 9thâon searching I found Â£25 in gold and 18s. 8d. in silver and bronze on Garrett, and on Nicholls 5s. 8 1/2d. and some small articles.

Cross-examined byMR. LEYCESTER. I found some papers on GarrettâI have not got them, they are at the Minories Stationâthey related to betsâ(The witness was directed to get the papers.)

DAVID WARDER (Re-examined.) A checker's wages are 27s. a weekâthe men are paid on FridayâOctober 9th was a ThursdayâI get that information from our staff officerâI do not know that Nicholls has a tonnage payment of about 8s. a week.

Nicholls, in his defence on oath, said that the canvas and the hoop came off the kit, and it was a piece of canvas and not a plaice that he had in his hand when the detective rushed in and said, "Drop it," and that he did not bring the empty into the van, but asked Garrett to help him. And had no intention to steal the fish.

Garrett, in his defence on oath, said that Nicholls asked him to give him a hand, and he did his duty by doing so, as he was not busy; that he had no intention to steal, and that he was his own banker and gained money by betting, as his papers which the police took from him would show.

CHARLES KENT (Re-examined.) I find that Garrett had the whole of his property returned to him, and that he has signed for it in this bookâthe entry is "John Garrett: Purse containing Â£25 18s. 8 1/2d., seven keys, two pocket knives, seven pencils, one pipe, tobacco box, and racing slip."

NOT GUILTY .

THIRD COURT.âWednesday, November 19th, 1902.

23. THOMAS COLLINS (73) . PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining from Frank Mayle, credit to the amount of Â£46 7s., 9d. without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt. He received a good character. Four months in the second division. âAnd

(24) HARRY MOSS (19) , to burglariously breaking out of the dwelling house of John Alfred Howland, having been convicted at North London Sessions on June 4th, 1901. Nine months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

There being no proof that the prisoner had seen or heard of her husband for seven years, theCOMMON SERJEANTheld that there was no case to go to the jury.

NOT GUILTY .

26 ALBERT RUTHNICK (29) , Forging and uttering a request for the delivery of a box, the property of Hugo Loffler.

MR. RODERICKandMR. DICKENSProsecuted, and the evidence was interpreted to the prisoner.

LOUIS TRIEBEL : I keep a private hotel at 114, Leman Street, Whitechapelâon October 25th the prosecutor left a box at my placeâthe prisoner was carrying it for himâon October 28th in the afternoon the prisoner brought me this letter and asked me to give him the box: "Please give the bearer my box, London, 28th October. Hugo Loftier"âI did not open the letterâI said, "I shall not give you the box; let Mr. Loffler come with you"âhe then went away, and shortly after he came again with the letter with this written outside the envelope: "As I am now busy with my cases, I cannot get away; please give my box to the bearer"âI again said to the prisoner, "I shall not give you the box"âhe said, "Give me back the letter"âI said, "No, the letter belongs to me; I will keep it, and let Mr. Loffler come."

HUGO LOFFLER . I live at 99, Charlotte Street. E.âI know the prisonerâhe carried a box for me to Mr. Triebel's restaurant on October 25thâafter that, I had nothing further to do with himâI never gave him any authority to apply for my box at Mr. Triebel'sâthis letter is not in my writingâthe contents of the box were worth Â£9 or Â£10.

Cross-examined. I have talked with you about going to South Africa, but I never gave you authority to fetch my box away from Mr. Triebel'sâI stated at the police court that the contents were worth only Â£5 or Â£6, but I have made a list since, and the value is Â£9 or Â£10.

JOHN ROBINSON (Dock Constable.) On October 29th, at 1 p.m., I was on duty at St. Katharine's DocksâI heard cries of "Police," and saw the prosecutor and the prisoner having high wordsâI asked what the matter was, and the prosecutor told me that the prisoner had written a letter trying to obtain a box of clothing belonging to himâI took him into custody.

JOHN YEO (303 H.) I was at the station when the prisoner was brought inâthe charge was interpreted to him, and he made no reply.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he did not write the letter, but was asked to deliver it by somebody else whose name he did not know.

GUILTYof uttering. Six months' hard labour.

OLD COURT.âThursday and Friday, November 20th and 21st, 1902.

Before Mr. Justice Bigham.

27. This Court was occupied on these days with the trial of ANNIE ELIZABETH PENRUDDOCKE . a case removed from the Wiltshire Assizes.

LOUIE PENCE . I am a married woman of 18, May Street, West Kensingtonâon the afternoon of August 24th, outside the Mansion House, I asked a policeman the way to the tube railway station; the prisoner came up and asked to be allowed to show me the way, as he was going that wayâI consented, and went with him to the Post Office Station in Newgate Streetâwe travelled together to Shepherd's Bush, and in the train he asked me if I could give him change for a sovereignâI gave him 17s., and said I would give him the other 3s. when we got outâthe sovereign had two headsâI said, "I do not like this sovereign; "he said "New Man. It is all right since the King is crowned"âI thought it was one of the new coinsâat Shepherd's Bush he disappearedâI showed the sovereign to two people at Shepherd's Bush and to a policeman, and was told that it was not a sovereignâI have not got it now, I have lost itâI next saw the prisoner in October outside the Bankâhe came up to me and asked me how I was, and if I was living close byâI saw a policeman on the opposite side, and made an excuse that I was going by one of the omnibuses across the wayâhe asked if he might come with meâI consented, and when I got to the opposite side I gave him into custody.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I have lived for some time in Franceâyou spoke to me sometimes in FrenchâI did not speak to you first.

MARY ANN SOPHIA DENMAN . I am single, and am housemaid at 168, Haverstock Hillâon October 22nd, about 1.30 p.m., I met the prisoner outside the Vaudeville Theatreâhe lifted his hat and said, "Good afternoon"âwe got into conversation, and he said he had brought some horses over from New York, and that he would want some money and was going to send a cablegram to New York for Â£9 10s.âhe asked me to go with him to Charing Cross Post Office, which I didâhe went inside and presently came out and asked me for 6d., as the cablegram cost more than he hadâI had not 6d., but gave him a sovereign, and he gave me back the changeâhe said he should have to wait forty minutes for the money, so we went to the matinee performance at the Strand Theatreâwe had two 2s. 6d. seats, for which I gave him a half sovereign, but he gave me-no changeâwhen we came out we went again to Charing Cross Post Officeâhe went inside, and presently came out and said that they had told him he was to go to the General Post Officeâwe went thereâhe went inside and came out and said that he had to pay 17s. 6d. for the cablegram, and would I give

him back the silver that he had given meâI did so, and he said he was 6s. shortâhe then persuaded me to let him pawn my watch and chain for 6s. to make up the differenceâhe did so and gave me the ticketâwe then went back to the General Post Officeâhe went inside and I waited outside for over two hours, but saw no more of him that dayâI gave information to the policeâI saw him the next day at about 10.30 p.m. at Snow Hill Police Station, and identified him from eight or nine other men.

Cross-examined. I am positive you are the man.

WILLIAM CHARLES BATTERSBY . I am assistant to William Battersby, a bawnbroker, of 80, Newgate Streetâthe pawn ticket produced is one of our firm'sâI produce the watch and chain referred to in itâto the best of my belief the prisoner is the man who pawned itâhe gave the name of Harrison.

Cross-examined. The man who pawned the watch and chain resembled you in every wayâit was pawned on October 22nd for 6s.

CHARLES GREENOUGH (City Detective.) I saw the prisoner at Snow Hill Police Station at 11 p.m. on October 23rdâhe was placed with ten other men, and Miss Denman at once identified himâhe was charged and replied, "I have never seen the lady before, I only came out of hospital on Wednesday"âthat would be the day beforeâhe gave an address at Chipstead Street, Brick Lane, but on inquiry he was not known thereâon him I found 5s. 10 1/2d., sixteen pawn tickets, two keys, a comb, and a memorandum.

Cross-examined. You said you were a waiterâyou did not say anything about having consignments of cattle from New Yorkâyou said you had come out of the hospital on Wednesday, about 12 o'clock.

FREDERICK HUNTER . I live at 78, Chesant Road, Fulham, and am booking clerk at the Shepherd's Bush station of the Central London Railwayâon Sunday, August 24th, Mrs. Pence showed me a coinâI examined it and found that it was a Coronation souvenirâit was of no value.

Cross-examined. I have never seen you with Mrs. PenceâI first saw you at the Guildhall Police CourtâI did not say there that it was in October when the lady spoke to me.

ERNEST NICHOLLS (502 City.) On August 24th I saw Mrs. Pence and the prisoner together at Shepherd's Bush Station of the Central London Railway.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that on the dates mentioned by the prosecution he was in the hospital.

GUILTY . He then

PLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at this Court on November 19th, 1900, in the name of Mark Fischer. Two years' hard labour.

THIRD COURT.âFriday, Saturday, and Monday, November 21st, 22nd And 24th, 1902.

32. RICHARD GOMMEZ (41) , PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully converting 100 to his own use, the moneys of Annie McInnes McLaren. He received a good character. Discharged on Recognisances.

FOURTH COURT.âFriday, November 21st, and Monday, November 24th, 1902.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.

33. JAMES MORLEY (72) and GEORGE HALL HALL, Conspiring to defraud James Smith Joyce, by inducing him by false pretences to execute a mortgage of his life interest under a certain will and codicils thereto; and unlawfully inducing the said James Smith Joyce to execute the said mortgage with intent to defraud: and conspiring and agreeing together to obtain from Henry Clarkson certain banker's cheques with intent to defraud; and obtaining by false pretences from the said Henry Clarkson banker's cheques for Â£23 19s., Â£200, and Â£54, with intent to defraud.

JAMES SMITH JOYCE . I live at 66, Rattery Road, BrixtonâI have no occupationâunder my mother's will I succeeded to a life interest of Â£100 per annumâthe corpus was Â£3,000âI had a power of appointment by will, of my shareâprevious to my mother's death I was short of money and went to Hall to obtain a loan, but did not succeedâabout a month after her death I obtained a loan of Â£60 from a Mr. CollyerâI have known Morley about twelve yearsâI told him I had a life interest of Â£100 a year under my mother's willâon January 24th, 1901, I received a letter from him, asking me to call upon him in Gray's Inn PassageâI called the next day, and he asked me to lend him Â£250 on some spirit warrants, and then proposed that I should invest Â£500 in a business called Mason's Stores, and I agreedâthe office of Mason's Stores is in Gray's-Inn PassageâI saw Hall at the office, and he drew up a charge for Â£500 and a bill for Â£400, both of which I signed and left with Hall at Morley's suggestionâI was going to borrow money from Hall to lend to Morleyâwith the bill I was to lend Morley Â£250, pay off Â£60 which I owed to Mr. Collyer, and the balance I was to invest in Mason's Storesâlater on I found out that the spirit warrants were not worth Â£250, and I wrote to Hall for the return of the bill and the chargeâthe next day I was in Morley's office when Hall brought the two documents inâhe put them down upon the table for me to take up, but Morley took them up insteadâI asked him for them, but he would not give me themâI told him I would consult a solicitor about it, and I consulted Messrs. Finny, Thomas and Co. of Chancery Lane, but a few days after, at Mr. Morley's suggestion, I wrote to them instructing them to take no further proceedingsâon February 5th, 1901, I wrote to Mr. Hall, asking him to obtain an advance for me, and later on I executed a mortgage to a Miss Payne for Â£150âout of the money I paid Mr. Morley Â£61 3s. 1d. on account of Mason'âI got Â£10 and the dock warrants out of the

transactionâthe dock warrants were afterwards mortgaged to Mr. BarronâHall rendered me an account showing how the money had been disposed ofâin March, 1901. I executed a mortgage for Â£350 to a Mrs. Close, out of which Â£69 4s. 5d. was paid to Morley on account of Mason's StoresâI saw it handed to Morleyâout of Mrs. Close's mortgage Miss Payne's mortgage was paid offâon March 9th, 1901. I executed another mortgage to Miss Payne for Â£150, out of which Â£99 (5s. 1d. was paid to Morley on account of Mason's Storesâin the same month I executed a mortgage for Â£600 to James Mason Stores, Limited, which was afterwards charged to Mr. Barron to go into the StoresâMason's Stores at Gray's Inn Passage was a bottle businessâthey had a grocery branch at Bromleyâabout March I became a Director of the Companyâvery little business was done at Gray's Inn Passageâin June, 1901, Mr. Morley told me that a Mr. Doig owed Mrs. Morley Â£686, and he asked me to take over the debt and execute a charge on my life interest for Â£586 in favour of herâI was to make Â£100 out of the transactionâI executed the charge, Exhibit 9, in Mr. Hall's officeâhe put it into his safe and said he would fill in the date and get it stampedâon July 15th, 1901, I executed a mortgage for Â£300 to Mrs. Charlotte Elizabeth Denningâthat was given by me to Mrs. Denning as a security for a debt due from Mason's Storesâin August I executed another mortgage for Â£20 to Miss Payneâshe was trying to sell my life interest, and I gave her that to stop herâMr. Morley was to pay the interest on the original mortgage to Miss Payne, but it was not paid, and that is the reason she was trying to sell my life interestâit was eventually soldâin September, 1901, there was a mortgage for Â£160 to the Legal General Investment Company, LimitedâMr. Hall was acting as my solicitor in respect of all these transactionsâproceedings have been taken against me in respect of some of the bills I signed with regard to Mason's Stores.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. The only complaint I made at Bow Street was that I was induced to execute a mortgage for Â£586 on my life interest on the understanding that Mr. Doig owed Â£686 to Mrs. Morleyâthat is the only charge I make nowâI make no complaint with regard to any of the other mortgages I executed; they are all in orderâI should not have taken any action at all only I was frightened into itâmy mother died in December, 1901âI was in debt at the timeâas soon as she died I set to work to raise money on my life interestâI was under the impression that I should be able to get the corpus, Â£3,000, and not merely the incomeâI took legal advice on the subject of Mr. Priest, and he said he would take Counsel's opinionâlater he told me that, in Counsel's opinion, I should succeed in getting the Â£3,000 distributed to meâan application was made to the Court, but was refused, because there were some infants interested with regard to the mortgage of June, 1901, Mr. Morley told me that Mr. Doig owed the Â£686 in connection with the Tivoli Music Hall, Bristol; Mr. Doig had entered into a contract to purchase the music hall, and that Mrs. Morley had advanced him Â£500 to pay the depositâit was in conesquence of Mr. Doig's statement that he did not owe the money that I made if this chargeâI do not know that Mr. Doig in December, 1897, had commenced

an action to recover that money which had been paid on his behalfâI was shown the counterfoils of two cheques, one for Â£100 and one for Â£400, with which the deposit had been paidâI was told that the balance between the Â£500 and the Â£686 was made up of costs and other expenses which Airs. Morley had paidâI do not remember the dates of the chequesâthe cheques produced correspond with the counterfoils that were shown tomeâthey are drawn in the name of a business which Mrs. Morley was the proprietor of about that timeâI have known Mr. Morley twelve years, but I have not known Mrs. Morley all that timeâI have occasionally visited at their house in Brompton SquareâI was told that Mrs. Morley had advanced the money to Mr. Doig out of her own separate propertyâif Mr. Doig had owed her Â£5001 should have nothing to complain of.

Cross-examined byMR. HUMPHREYS. I was not first of all introduced to Mr. Hall by Mr. MorleyâI had been to Mr. Hall before with a view to his obtaining a loan for me on my life interest, but he did not do so, and I went to Mr. Collyerâhe got me a loan of Â£50âMr. Hall had nothing to do with that transactionâthe next time I saw Mr. Hall was on January 25th, when I was taken to him by Mr. MorleyâI had the conversation with Mr. Morley about the spirit warrants before going to Mr. HallâI had not got the Â£250 to lend to Mr. Morley, and he suggested that I should give a charge on my life interest, and suggested going to Mr. Hall to put the document into proper legal formâMr. Morley explained to Mr. Hall in my presence what he had agreed with me, and asked him to draw up the necessary document, and then it "was that Mr. Hall wrote out the promissory note for Â£400 and the charge on my life interest to secure itâI gave the charge in order that Â£250 might be borrowed upon it from somebodyâMr. Hall was to get the money; if he got Â£250 he was to pay to Mr. Morley what remained after paying the debts that had been previously incurred, and this was doneâhe rendered me an account of how the money had been disposed ofâI had nothing to complain ofâthe 63 3s. 1d. was paid to Mr. Morley on my instructionsâthe money was handed to Mr. Morley by Mr. Hall in the presence of Mr. Hayworth and myselfâas only Â£61 3s. 1d. had been paid to Mr. Morley, I suggested to Mr. Hall that he should try and get some more money advanced, and he discovered Messrs, Bloomerâbefore they would agree to lend any money they wanted a written undertaking from me to pay them twenty guineas, their costsâI gave it, and they advanced Â£350âout of that Messrs. Collyer and Miss Payne were paid off; Messrs. Bloomer and Mr. Hall were paid their costs, and the balance of Â£69 4s. 5d. was paid to Mr. MorleyâMr. Hall rendered me an account of that transaction, Exhibit 33âthat transaction was perfectly regular, and I understood itâthe same day, March 6th, I wrote a letter to Mr. Hall asking him to get me some more money from Miss Payneâhe did soâit was in respect of that Â£150 that I ultimately sold my life interestâthat was a second charge; she came in after Mrs. loseâthe other mortgage for Â£20 that she had was given to her to stop her selling my life interestâthat was executed while the proceedings in Chancery were taking placeâthat transaction was carried out by Mr. Hallâit was a proper thing to do in my interestâMr. Morley suggested

the mortgage for Â£586âI understood that transactionâMr. Morley gave me a receipt; I instructed him to take it to Mr. Hall for him to prepare the necessary documentsâI had not previously discussed it with Mr. Hallâup to that time he knew nothing about the arrangements made between Mr. Morley and myselfâwhen I went into Mr. Hall's office he was engaged in preparing the two documents, and he finished them in my presenceâbefore I signed them Mr. Hall read them over to me and told me that the assignment would require a Â£3 stampâI did not expect him to pay the Â£3 out of his own pocket; Mr. Morley was to give it to him, he knew I had not the moneyâI got the document back from Mr. Hall undated and not stampedâI did not take any steps to have it stamped.

Re-examined. I have had some business experienceâI was a brewer for six yearsâfor some years I have been a commission agent, but I did not make a living out of itâI have never done any business to earn a livingâI am fifty-six years oldâthe paper I wrote out before I went to see Mr. Hall on June 6th was written at Mr. Morley's dictationâwhen I saw Mr. Hall I understood him to say that I should get my money from Mr. Doigâout of all the mortgages I have only had about 170âabout Â£230 has gone into Mason's StoresâMrs. Morley has the charge of Â£380 on my life interestâI have the debt against Mr. Doig and the spirit warrants.

JOHN DOIG . I lived at 4, Hardwick Place, N.W., and am a secretary of companiesâI have known Morley and his wife since 1895 or 1896âit is not true that I owe Mrs. Morley Â£686; I do not owe her a pennyâin 1897 I entered into a contract to purchase the Tivoli Music Hall at Bristol as a nominee of Mr. Morley and at his requestâthe reason why it was done in my name and not his was because he had been bankruptâhe was carrying on business in his wife's nameâhe said it was for the benefit of the familyâI provided Â£100âat that time he was indebted to meâthe transaction was never carried outâthe letter of September 13th, 1897, written by me to Mrs. Morley, was written at Mr. Morley's dictationâneither Mr. Morley nor his wife have ever taken steps to recover the Â£686 they say I owe them.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I am licensee of the Three Tuns, in Aldersgate StreetâI was there in June, 1901âthat is a very valuable propertyâI am not interested in any other licensed houses in London, but I have beenâI signed the contract for the purchase of the Tivoli Music Hallâunder that contract Â£500 was payable as a deposit, I think Mr. Morley paid it; he arranged the whole thingâI was only the nominal purchaserâI paid Â£100, I did not pay a further Â£400âI cannot recollect whether I said at the police court, "I paid Â£100, Mrs. Morley did not pay the rest"âMessrs. Fedman and Goodman were acting for the vendorsâI believe the action to recover back the deposit was brought in my nameâI cannot recollect whether I gave an acceptance for Â£3,000 to carry out the bargainâthe action was also to restrain Messrs. Fedman and Goodman from parting with those billsâit was brought on the ground that I had been induced to enter into the contract by misrepresentation, but it was subsequently withdrawnâalthough it was brought in my

name, I had nothing to do with itâI swore an affidavit in the actionâthat affidavit was trueâthe Â£3,000 was not paid, and the contract went offâit was sold to somebody else, and the Â£500 deposit was forfeitedâuntil I saw my affidavit at the police court I never suggested that I was Mr. Morley's nominee, I never dreamt anything about itâI said at the police court that the profits were to be divided into three parts, one for Mr. Harris, one for his wife, and one for myself; that was true.

Re-examined. In the action that was brought with regard to the Tivoli at Bristol, Mr. Brown was acting as Mr. Morley's solicitorâI never gave him any instructionsâI cannot recollect who drew up my affidavitâI was Mr. Morley's dupe, and as such I made myself responsible to Mrs. Morley by giving the bills by which I promised to pay her the Â£500âI have never been in a position to meet the billsâthe Three Tuns, Aldersgate Street, is not worth Â£20,000âI should not like to say the lowest price I would take for itâI am not the freeholder; it belongs to the City Corporation.

HENRY CLARKSON . I am a solicitor, of 9, Ironmonger Lane, E.C.âI know Abraham Robinson; he has occasionally introduced business to meâI remember him bringing Mr. Morley to me on August 2nd, 1901âhe said, "I have a gentleman here who wants to borrow some money," I think he said Â£300,. "upon some property, he has the deed with him; I had better leave him to give you the information about it or tell you what he wants"âMorley then produced a mortgage deed; he said his wife had advanced Mr. Joyce Â£586 upon his share in his mother's estate; that the parties had agreed to make an application to the Court to have the estate divided at once; that Counsel's opinion had been obtained that that could be done; that the trustee was willing, but wished to be protected by the Court; that his wife had expected the application to be made before the Long Vacation, but that it could not come on; that she was a lady of property; that she had two mortgages of Â£3,000 each, but that she could not get the money in at once as it was all locked up; that she had bought a provision business and paid a deposit, and had to complete the purchase in a few days, and that she wanted to borrow Â£300 on the security to enable her to complete; he said that if she did not complete it then she would lose her deposit and also the business, which was a valuable one; that Mr. Hall, of Warwick Court, knew all about the matter; that he had prepared the deed, and if I saw him he would explain the whole matter to me and give me any information I requiredâI told him I could probably get the money at the beginning of the following week, it was Bank Holiday week, and I would see Mr. Hall and make the necessary inquiries and let him know if I could do itâhe then said that his wife was an invalid, and that he held her power of attorney and he could do the whole businessâI said I should not allow any client of mine to advance money unless I had the deed executed by the party herselfâhe said she suffered from her heart or something of that kind, but if that was so he would get her to come down to my officeâhe then produced a bill for Â£25 and asked me to discount itâI refused, and told him that was not my business,' and that I was not in the "habit of discounting billsâhe pressed me to do so and

offered me a guinea for my trouble, and said that it could be taken as part of the Â£300, and left the mortgage with me as securityâI then gave him a cheque for Â£23 19s.âthat is all that passed at that interviewâthe same afternoon I went to see Mr. HallâI produced to him the mortgage and told him that Mr. Morley had been to me to obtain an advance upon it, and that he had referred me to him for the necessary informationâhe gave me the information I requiredâI asked him if the Â£586 had been advanced all right, and he said yesâthe next day I went to Somerset House to see the willâon August 6th, Mr. Morley and his wife called againâMr. Robinson was present thenâMrs. Morley produced eight bonds of Â£25 each in Mason's Stores, Limited, and said, "I have to settle my purchase to-day; I have brought these debentures, they are good, they pay 6 per cent. I will leave them with you as well as the mortgage if you will let me have Â£200 pending the completion of the mortgage for Â£300"âshe pressed me to do it, and I, having enquired into the matter, gave her an open cheque for Â£200, payable to Mrs. J. Morleyâit is endorsed J. Morleyâthe next day, August 7th, I went to see the solicitor to the first mortgage and got particulars of the different chargesâon the 8th I went to see the solicitors to the trustee, and discovered that there was another charge of which I knew nothingâthe same day Mr. Morley called upon me; I said, "I find from the trustee that Mrs. Denning has given notice of a charge"; he said, "She has a security, and my wife will no doubt leave her security with you as an additional security"âI was satisfied with thatâthe next day he called again with Mrs. Morley, and the mortgage was executed in my presence, and I gave Mrs. Morley a cheque for Â£54, being the balance of the Â£300 less twenty guineas my costsâI gave notice of the mortgage to Mr. Joyce and to the solicitors for the prior mortgagees, and the trusteeâabout the end of September or the beginning of October, 1901,1 searched the file at Somerset House in reference to Mason's Stores and on December 20th I issued a writ against Mrs. Morley for the principal and interestâI could not serve the writ, and applied for substituted service, but could not get the order, consequently that action never came to anythingâon February 6th, 1902, I wrote to Mr. Hall, Exhibit 15, and got a reply on the 7thâon the same day, the 6th, I wrote to Mr. Morley and got a reply on the 9thâon February 20th I again wrote to Mr. Hall, and to that I got a reply on the 21stâI never succeeded in getting any of the money back.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I have never taken any proceedings against Mr. Morley either civil or criminalâmy application for substituted service of the writ against Mrs. Morley was refusedâthis prosecution had been going on at Bow Street about a month before I was summoned as a witnessâI have since entered into an arrangement with the purchaser of the life interest by which I hope to get my money backâif the Judge in Chancery had made the order no doubt there would have been money enough to meet everybody.

Cross-examined byMR. HUMPHREYS. No statement as to Mrs. Morley's means or about her in any way was made by Mr. Hall except that the money was advancedâmy principal security was the life interestâmy

only other security was my right to sue Mrs. Morley upon her covenantsâbefore I went to Mr. Hall I read the mortgage and noticed that it was subject to prior encumbrances to the amount of Â£1,100âMr. Hall did not say to me "You must not rely upon me as to prior encumbrances"âI made some inquiries, but Mr. Hall gave me information about some of themâit was not until the 8th that I found out about Mrs. Denning's mortgage.

ABRAHAM ROBINSON . I am a furrier, of 84, Newington Green Road, Canonburyâon August 2nd, 1901, I was outside the offices of Messrs. Robinson and Fisher, King William StreetâI saw Morley, he asked me if Messrs. Robinson's offices were upstairsâI told him there was no one inâhe said, "Oh, bother, I promised to get Â£300, and now the man is not here"âI said, "What security have you got?"âhe said, "I have got a security like a bank note"âI then took him to Mr. ClarksonâI said, "Mr. Clarkson, here is a gentleman who wants to borrow some money, he says he has a first-class security," and Morley took out a mortgage for Â£586 and a bill in he name of Joyceâhe said he wanted Â£300 at once, as his wife had bought a provision business for her grandson, and she wanted Â£300 to complete the purchaseâhe also said that his wife had plenty of money, but it was all out in mortgagesâMr. Clarkson said, "If it is all right I can let you have the money; I will make enquiries"âMr. Morley then said he must have Â£25 at once, and asked Mr. Clarkson to discount a bill, which he didâI was also present when Mr. and Mrs. Morley were at Mr. Clarkson's officeâMrs. Morley said, "I must have the money or else I lose the deposit I paid on a provision business that I have bought for my grandson; I have got plenty of money, but I cannot get it in; I have lent here Â£586," referring to the mortgageâon a subsequent occasion Mr. Morley took me to Mr. Hall's office about the mortgage for Â£600, and a conversation arose about the Â£586, and Mr. Hall said that it had passed over in his office.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I have known Mr. Clarkson over twenty yearsâI introduce business to him if I canâI did not expect to make anything by taking Mr. Morley to himâI did not say at Bow Street that I took him to Mr. Clarkson to-get my commission of 2Â£ per cent.âI expected something from Mr. Morley, but I never got anythingâwhen Mr. Morley asked for the Â£300 I did not hear Mr. Clarkson say that he would have to see the trustee and make enquiries.

Cross-examined byMR. HUMPHREYS. Mr. Morley took me to Mr. Hall's office several timesâthe first time was because Mr. Morley wanted to raise some money on the Â£600 mortgage.

Monday, November 24th.

ARTHUR GEORGE CLARKSON . I am a solicitor, and a son of Henry ClarksonâI assist my father in his business, at 9, Ironmonger LaneâI was present at an interview on August 2nd, 1901, between Mr. Morley, Mr. Robinson, and my fatherâMr. Robinson introduced Mr. Morley to my father, and said, "I have brought a gentleman who wants an advance on a certain mortgage"âMr. Morley produced a mortgage of a life interest of a Mr. Joyceâhe said he wanted Â£300 on it; it was a mortgage given to hisâwife; she was a wealthy lady, and had two mortgages out, of Â£3,000 each,

but she could not get them in in time; that she wanted the money quickly because she had signed a contract for the purchase of a business, and it was necessary that the matter should be completed the following week; she had paid the deposit, and she would lose it and the business if the matter was not settled thenâhe also said that he had a power of attorney from his wife and could sign any security we wished on her behalfâmy father said that he could not take a mortgage executed under a power of attorney, but that Mrs. Morley must come up to his officeâMr. Morley said he would bring herâI was not present when Mrs. Morley came.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I heard my father say that he must make enquiries into the security and inquire of the trustees before he agreed to advance the moneyâcertain information was given to him to enable him to make inquiriesâI cannot say whether the name of the trustees' solicitor was mentionedâI did not hear anything mentioned about the prior charges that were already upon the security.

THOMAS SMITH BENNETT . I am a musical instrument dealer, of 8, Red Lion Square, W.C.âabout three years ago I was carrying on the, business of a bottle merchant at that addressâin the August of that year I advertised it for sale and got an answer in the name of MorleyâI cannot remember the Christian nameâMr. Morley called upon me and said he had seen the advertisement and asked for particulars of the businessâhe said he wanted it for a friend named MasonâI told him I wanted Â£200âhe said he had not got money enough to pay for it all, but that he had great expectations, and if I was inclined to take part of the money in cash and part in bills, he would be glad to make arrangements with meâhe said he had a power of attorney to act for Mr. Mason, and he would see that the bills were metâI agreed to take Â£100 down, and the other Â£100 in four bills of Â£25 eachâthe bills were drawn up and the Â£100 paid in Mr. Brown's office, a solicitor in Bedford RowâMr. Brown handed over the money, I thinkâMr. Mason was presentâI have only received Â£18 15s. on the billsâI have applied many times for the balance, but have not succeededâthe business was afterwards transferred to 5, 6, and 7 Gray's Inn Passageâwhen I sold the business it was making a profit of Â£250 a year.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I sold it because I was getting too old to work itâit is not true that I sold it because it had come to griefâMr. Morley made full inquiries into it before he agreed to purchase itâmy son-in-law continued in the business after it changed hands until it was sold up in October or November last yearâhe was in Mr. Morley's employment.

JAMES COSTA MASON . I am an accountantâMr. Bennett's business of a bottle merchant was bought in my name by a Mrs. HarrisâI acted in the matter at Mr. Morley's requestâMrs. Harris is Mr. Morley's daughterâI did not find any money for the purchase, Mrs. Harris didâafter the business was purchased I acted as traveller at 12s. a weekâI had no share in the profitsâMr. Harris, the husband of Mrs. Harris, and Mr. George conducted the businessâI remained in the business until it was turned into a company in October, 1900âI do not know how long the business went onâI was given Â£165 in shares, no cashâI did not pay anything for them

âI received no dividend on themâI personally paid the Â£100 to Mr. Bennettâit was handed to me by Mr. Morleyâthe money paid to Mr. Bennett on one of the bills came out of the businessâI had nothing to do with the handing over of that moneyâthe Â£600 mortgage of Mr. Joyce was in my name, but I had nothing to do with itâI did not advance any money on it.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. The business was perfectly genuine, bringing in a profitâafter some time a grocery branch was opened at Bromleyâthat was before the business was turned into a companyâI believe it was the branch at Bromley that came to grief and brought the business to the groundâit is quite true that when the business was purchased in my name in 1899 I had expectations from an uncle.

Re-examined. It was not my businessâI was acting as nominee.

EBENEZAR CHAPMAN . I am a clerk in the department of the Registrar of Joint Stock CompaniesâI produce the file of James Mason's Stores, Limitedâthe statement of the nominal capital was presented for registration by Mr. George Hall Hall, solicitor, of 3, Warwick Court, W.C.âthe nominal capital was Â£500, divided into 100 Â£5 sharesâMr. Hall was acting in all respects as solicitor in the formation of the CompanyâI find on the file particulars of a mortgage dated November 21st, 1900, for Â£.3,800, issued upon the whole property and undertaking of the Company, including its unpaid capital; and debentures to a total of Â£1,625 have been issued on that mortgage up to date.

ALFRED POTTER . I formerly resided at 54, Brompton Square, S.W.âI know Mr. and Mrs. Morleyâthey lived next door to meâthey left about three or three and a half years ago and Mr. and Mrs. Harris then came to live thereâI did not take particular notice when they did leave.

FRANK KNELL (Detective Sergeant E.) On September 5th, I saw Morley in custody at Bow StreetâI had a warrant for his arrestâI read the warrant to him, and he replied, "I never had the money; it is nothing to do with me; it is simply a case of blackmail; Joyce will swear anything for twopence; my wife had the money and not me"âthe same morning,. I arrested Hall at his office in Warwick CourtâI read the warrant to him, he said "Yes"âon the way to the station, he said "I have a copy of the deed, the original is in the hands of the mortgagee; of course Morley had the charge for the purposes of the mortgage; I simply acted as solicitor"âI produce certain office copies bearing the seals of the respective Courts at which they were issued of judgments obtained against Mrs. Morleyâmost of them are in 1898âthere are two in 1902.

ARTHUR JOHN PINNEY . I am a clerk at the Central Office of the Royal Courts of JusticeâI produce the original depositions of Mrs. Julia Morley in an action of Thomas May, as judgment creditor against James Mason's Stores, Limited.

TheCOURTconsidered that there was no evidence to go to the Jury against HALL.

NOT GUILTY .

JOHN DOIG (Re-examined.) I contracted to buy the Tivoli Music Hall as Mr. Morley's nomineeâthe arrangement was that the profits were to be divided into three parts, one part to go to his son-in-law Mr. Harris, one

part to Mrs. Harris, and one part to myselfâI did not know then that Mrs. Harris was Mr. Morley's daughter.

ARTHUR GEORGE CLARKSON (Re-examined). The letter of August 2nd, 1901, from Clarkson to Morley is one of our letters in connection with this business.

----HANDCOCKS (Detective-Sergeant E.) On September 5th, I arrested MorleyâI saw Mrs. Morley the same dayâshe seemed to be in good health.

Cross-examined byMR. AVORY. I have not a good medical knowledgeâI do not know the look of a person who has had a fit of apoplexyâI was with Mrs. Morley two hours, searching the house.

Morley, in his defence on oath, said that it was not true that Mr. Doig was simply a nominee in the purchase of the Tivoli Music Hall; that Mr. Doig borrowed Â£500 from Mrs. Morley to pay the deposit, and that he owed her altogether Â£1,000, the other Â£500 being the profits on the Lyric Hotel, Shaftesbury Avenue, and the Red Lion, Fenchurch Street, in which they were jointly interested; that Mrs. Morley also paid Â£186 in law costs for him, making Mr. Doig's indebtedness on the Tivoli transaction Â£686; that he was constantly asking him for the money, but could never get it; that as he had known him for a long time and was friendly, he did not like to sue him, and therefore sold the debt to Mr. Joyce for Â£586, giving him the benefit of Â£100; that it was untrue that Mr. Joyce agreed to lend Â£250 on the spirit warrants, but that he agreed to buy them for Â£350, and that the money he received from Mr. Joyce was on this account and was not for the purpose of Mason's Stores; that it was not true that he said anything about his wife's means to Mr. Clarkson; that he went to Mr. Clarkson to raise money on the mortgage, and gave him all the information he required and asked for.

MORLEY, GUILTYof the obtaining;

NOT GUILTYof conspiracy.Two previous convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour.

OLD COURT.âSaturday November 22nd,, 1902.

Before Mr. Justice Bigham.

34. ALBERT EDWARD BUSTARD (31) , PLEADED GUILTY to indecently assaulting Dora Emily Allen and Emily Florence Allen, girls under the age of 13 years. He received a good character. Discharged on recognisances.

35. ALBERT EDWARD BUSTARD was again indicted for attempting to murder Eliza Bustard.

FREDERICK WILLIAM PARKER . I am a compositorâI had a son named Henryâhe was killed on October 21st.

BENJAMIN SPENCER (194 X) I produce a plan of Helmet Row and Church Road.

GEORGE GASTON . I live at 5, Grove Road, Tottenhamâon October 1st, between 3 and 3.30, I was at home at work, and saw a cart driven by I believe BrandonâDewey was by his side, hitting the horse with a whip or a stickâthey were going as fast as the horse could gallopâI first saw them between the church and the recreation groundâI saw them before they came to cross Norman Streetâit appeared to me that they were racing another cart which was going along Ironmonger Row, because they were halloaing outâthey seemed to try to turn into Norman Street, but could not do so, because the horse was going at such a paceâthey had to pass another van almost opposite No 45, on the near sideâthey passed the cart, and went to the end of the turning and turned to the rightâthe road bends there, and they came to the back of the houses, and then back to Norman StreetâI saw the child just after the wheel passed over itâthat was long before they got to Norman StreetâI saw the wheel leave the child's bodyâI went over, and ran after the cart a quarter of a mileâDewey was in it, but Brandon had left the cart.

Cross-examined. I had come into Helmet Row from Old Street, and had gone about a quarter the length of the road when first my attention was attractedâI think there is a man-hole by the jeweller's shop, and another to the rightâthe child was knocked down almost immediately after I heard the cart approachingâthe man was sitting on the edge of the cartâI did not see any childrenâIwas twenty or thirty yards from the child when I first noticed itâI know Dewey pretty well; he was not racing when he passed me, but he was afterwards.

CHARLES MONYPENNY . I live at 25, Radnor Street, St. Luke'sâabout 3.30 on October 31st, I was in Helmet Row, between the footpath and the burial ground and saw a cart laden with rubbishâone man was driving, and the other had the whip and stood upâthey were going twelve or fourteen miles an hourâwhen they got within twelve yards of Norman Street, and before they crossed it, they shouted "Wish "to the horse, they then crossed Norman Street, and on the near side there was a van in the road, and they pulled round it to avoid collision, and I saw the child fall.

Cross-examined. They seemed to have lost control of the horse, and shouted "Wish "to itâit seemed to me that from that point they were doing their best to pull it up.

Re-examined. I mean that the horse got out of their power and there was no chance of stopping it.

By theCOURT. There is a dead wall there, the horse seemed to have turned round there as they did not want it to graze itself.

ISRAEL ROOTS . I live at 24, Popple Street, Bethnal Green, at the corner of Norman Streetâon October 24th, about 3 o'clock, I heard shouts of "Stop the cart"âI opened the window and saw a two wheel cart with brick dust, passing my door, and the wheel went right over the body of a child which I had not seen before it was knocked downâI ran out, and the driver came up, though the cart did not stopâI saw one man in the

cart, I ran after it; he was galloping all the way; and was stopped by a constable at the corner of Popple Street.

Cross-examined. I shouted to him to stop, but the horse went on at a gallop.

MRS. JONES. I live at 44, St. Paul's Buildingsâon October 21st about three o'clock I was at the corner of Homer Road, and saw the cart coming and the child knocked down, and the left wheel go over it.

Cross-examined. The impression on my mind was that the horse had taken frightâI saw the other little ones get out of the way.

SELINA WHITE I am thirteen years old and live at 45, Homer Roadâon October 21st I was in charge of Albert Henry Parker and another childâwe had just been sent out to playâthe small boy was run over.

ELIZABETH GARDNER . I live at 2, Panton Streetâon October 21st I was standing at the corner of Homer Road and Norman Street, and saw a brick cart dashing alongâI did not see the child run overâDewey was standing at the horse's head; I said, "Are you aware you have run over a child?" he said, "Good God, Missis, have I?"I said, "Yes, will you stop there till I come back?" but I did not go back.

GEORGE HATT (Policeman) On October 21st I was in Panton Street and saw a brick cart being driven alongâI stopped it; the man got off the cart, and I told him I should take him back while inquiry was made, and I did so.

CHARLES COOPER (31 P.) I am in charge of the City Road Police Stationâon October 21st Dewey was brought in and I cautioned himâhe said, "The horse overpowered me, and when I found what I had done I was mad with fright and drove away"âhe was quite sober.

HENRY KENNA (Detective Sergeant G.) On October 21st, about five o'clock, I went to Brandon's employer's and asked Brandon to go with me to the stationâI cautioned Brandonâhe said, "I met Dewey near the railway station about twelve o'clock; we had a drink and went from there to Bridgwater Square and had a pot of ale; I drove the cart; I saw three children, and shouted to them, but the other chap touched my arm."

Dewey in his defence upon oath stated that he had been in the employ of Stephen Liddiard five years, driving his carts, and this was the first time an accident had happened; that the horse shied at a man hole, for which he struck him twice with the whip; that it was a quiet horse, and one which he was accustomed to drive, but after being struck he went off at a trot; that he saw three children, but had, not got the reins; that one child was run over; that he (Dewey) got frightened, and waited for a constable to come up, and somebody struck him; that the horse was about nine years old, and had shied before; and that he only struck it to chastise it; and that there were about 24 cwt. of bricks in the cart.

Brandon, in his defence upon oath, stated that he also had been in Messrs. Liddiard's service five years, and had been in the habit of driving, but had never driven this horse; that there was a van on the near side of the tree', and three children sitting there: that he halloaed out "Heigh," but one of them was run over, and he pulled up the horse directly.

HENRY WHITLNG . I am coachman at 14, East Cottagesâon October 16th I was in the Victoria beer-house, East Finchley, and heard the prisoner in another compartmentâhe was very drunk and they refused to serve himâhe came into my compartment and said "There have been several hay stacks set on fire round about, and to-morrow there will be several more by Wobbles"âhe is a tailor.

Cross-examined. He said that as loud as I am talking nowâno one else was thereâI am in Mr. Haynes' employ, of Manor Farm, and am known as his coachmanâthe prisoner walked 'close up to meâI know Mr. StanfieldâI did not see him that eveningâI heard next day that he was there and saw him outside the same public-house next day, Sunday the 19th, the day after the fireâI spoke to him firstâI knew then that he had been at Delamore's on the 16thâI said that I had heard him say that Wobbles would set the stack on fireâhe said, "I heard nothing"âI did not reply that several people heard him as well as me, nor did I say"You dare deny my words on Wednesday," or "You come up with me on Wednesday, and you will be well paid"âall the conversation between me and Stanfield was "Did you hear Wobbles use those words"âthere was no one else in that compartment that night.

Re-examined, Stanfield is a gentleman's sonâhe is employed nowhere presentâI have met him in public-housesâI have known him for earsâno one has paid me anything for giving evidence.

SAMUEL PINDER . I am foreman at the Manor Farm Dairy, Highgate, in the Company's employâthey had some hay-stacks at Bishop's Avenue in a paddock, enclosed with wire fencingâthe road runs alongside he paddockâthe stacks were sixty or seventy yards from the roadâthere an iron gate into the paddockâa man can climb over itâon October 17th at 10 a.m. I saw the stacks safe and went away to the lower part of the farmâI went back about 11 a.m. and two of the three stacks were a fireâthey had been lighted from the windward side, the farthest from, he roadâI got assistanceâthe fire was got out at 12 next dayâthe damage as about Â£400âI know the prisonerâI saw him on the Saturday morning between 10 and 11 in the road, looking over the fence at the menâthe, stacks were so situated that if one had been lighted the wind would drive the fire to the other.

WILLIAM JOSEPH EMMERSON . I am an omnibus attendant at the Bald Faced Stagâthe public house is oppositeâon the left, and the 'buses stand on the rightâI know the prisoner as Wobblesâhe passed me on Friday, October 17th, between 10 and 10.10 a.m.âI was on the 'bus stand, giving the horses feedâhe was going towards the railway stationâhe said, "Good morning Stick," and I said, "Good morning"âI saw no more of himâI saw nothing the fire, but I heard of it half an hour afterwardsâyou could walk my stable to the stacks in six or seven minutes.

Cross-examined. I was at the yard on the day after the fire, Saturday,

but did not see Wobbles go by that dayâI have been there three years last Augustâthe last time I saw him was a month or five weeks beforeâI have never seen him in front of the Bald Faced Stag for about an hour; I should notice him if he was there, because so many of them stand there and speakâI did not see him in front of me on the day before the fire.

Re-examined. We do not have fires every day.

THOMAS AYRES (Policeman S.) I received information about this fire, and went to the prisoner's house in Stanley Road, New Southgate; that is about a mile and a half from Bishop's Avenue, twenty-five minutes' walkâhe was not at homeâI then went to the yard, and found him inside the garden, looking at two burning ricksâI called him out and asked him to account for his whereabouts yesterdayâhe said, "I left home at nine yesterday morning. I went to the Flag Staff beer-house and had a half of ale; I then spoke to John Page, of Eaton's Villas, Sidney Road, New Southgate; Page was at his front gate; I was speaking to him about half an hour. I then went to Mr. Press', Royal Oak, and had half of ale, and spoke to Mr. Press about hay-cutting for Sanger's Circus people. I left there about ten and went home and peeled some potatoes. I was in doors about twenty minutes, and then went out."âI asked him where he went to?âhe said, "I went to Mr. Worral's, the Alexandra Arms, and had a half of ale"âI said, "What time would that be?"âhe said, "About ten minutes past twelve; some workmen were there having their dinner"âI then told him I should take him in custody on suspicion of firing the two ricksâhe said, "That is a bit more of it"âI took him to the stationâthe Flag Staff is on the freehold, about five minutes' walk from the prisoner's houseâthe villas where Mr. Page lives are in the City Road, and Mr. Worrall's is about three minutes' walk from him in Pembroke Roadâif he was going from home or from the Alexandra Arms his nearest way would be to pass the Bald Faced Stag.

Cross-examined. I saw him in his cell in consequence of a message by another officer, and he told me he had seen a constable standing by the Flag Staff that morning, who he should know againâhe said that he saw a girl at work at the Flag Staff, and saw a sweep in Pembroke Road, and had seen two men working at some tar palings opposite Mr. Page'sâhe told me to go to the Flag Staff and enquire there, and said. "I saw the landlord's son; if you go and see Mr. Press, his married daughter came into the bar when I left"âI do not know her, or whether she is here.

CHARLES BRYANT (Station Sergeant.) I was on duty when the prisoner was brought in on October 18thâI asked him if he knew why he had been brought in thereâhe said, "Yes, I think so"âhe made a statement, which I took down in writing, and he signed it of his own accord (Beading): "I left home at 9 a.m., and spoke to John Page, Deacon's Terrace, Sidney Road, New Southgate, for half an hour; then to Flag Staff, was served by a girl (9.30), stopped half an hour, was served with half of ale (10); spoke to the landlord's son. I then went home, remained indoors twenty minutes (10.20), and then went to Mr. Worral's (Alexandra), had half of ale, was served by the barmaid, remained fifteen minutes (10.35), went home, and stopped there till this morning. In Worral's during the dinner

hour,âwhile the men were having dinner, and arrived home at 12.30 p.m. I only went into Mr. Worral's once."

Cross-examined. He said he was not at East Finchley on that day.

CHARLES ALBERT WORRALL . I keep the Alexandra public house, New FinchleyâI saw the prisoner in my house about 12.14 on the day before he was arrestedâthat was the dinner hourâhe did not have his dinner thereâpeople do have dinner thereâhe had not been in the house before that day.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he and his four brothers were hay tyers; that he left home at 9 a.m. to go to work at Fry son Manor, but the wind was too high for work, and he went to the Royal Oak, and stopped ten or fifteen minutes, and the landlord served him, and when he came out he saw two men at work on the footpath, and stopped to look at them for ten minutes, and Mr. Page came out of his villa and stood speaking to him for half an hour; that he then walked to the Flag Staff, three or four minutes' walk off, where a young woman served him, and stopped there nearly half an hour, and then went round towards the urinal, and saw a constable, who he was quite sure was not Taylor; that he saw a young woman in black without a hat come in for some ale in a jug; that Mr. Press, the landlord, served him at the Royal Oak with a glass of ale, and they conversed about cutting some hay, and he was there till about 11 o'clock; that a young man with a had and shovel came in and was served; that he then left and went towards Muswell Hill, and saw Bowden, a sweep, go into a house in Sidney Terrace; and that he then went home for twenty minutes and peeled some potatoes, and came out and went into the Alexandra about twelve and stopped there quarter of an hour, and then went home, and did not come out again till the next morning; that on the night before he fire he was drunk, and did not remember being at the public house the right before the fire; that he saw Stick outside the place the next day, but did not know whether Stick saw him; and that he had always been on friendly terms with Stick; that he was at work tying hay for Mr. Lane when he had the last fine two years ago, and earned about ten shillings a day.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM GEORGE PRESS I keep the Royal Oak, Sidney Road, New Southgateâon the, Sunday following the haystack having been set on fire, saw Porter in my houseâon Friday, October 17th, close upon 10 a.m., when I came downstairs, having had a sprained wrist from having been thrown out of my trap, he was in the tap room when I went into the bar the people in the room were speaking about "Sir"George Sanger's saw coming to Muswell Hillâmy wife and daughter were in and about the houseâthe Bald Faced Stag is about two miles from my placeâI only saw Porter once that dayâthe police came and spoke to me on, I think, the Sunday week after the fire.

Cross-examined. The prisoner seldom used my house, because his work another wayâthe police called my attention to his visit about half an hour afterwards, and on the Sunday week.

ALICE GODDARD . I am the daughter of Mr. PressâI went there to

fetch my sister's housekeeping money from her husband on Friday, October 17th, about 9.45 a.m.âI remember the day from seeing my sister and going to her husband for herâPorter stood leaning his back against the tap room door-post as I went inâI stayed about an hour.

Cross-examined. My children have to get to school by nine o'clockâI sent them about 8.55âthen I had to clear up and wash myself, and go and ask how my sister was, to let her husband knowâI reckon the time from thatâI was not asked about this before the following week, when mother asked me if I remembered seeing Porter in the bar, and I said, yes.

Re-examined. Mother told me the police had been inquiringâthat was the reason of her inquiry.

JOHN PAGE . I am a labourer, of 2, Deacon's Villas, Sidney Road, South-gateâI heard of the burning of the haystack on October 18thâI saw Porter on the 17th outside my gate, about ten o'clockâI conversed with him about ten minutesâmy wife was looking out of the windowâI could not say which way he went, I went about my business and he went about hisâI went along Colney Hatch Lane, away from the Royal Oakâhe did not come that wayâthe police called upon me on Sunday morning, the 19thâmy attention was not called to the matter before that Sunday.

Cross-examined. The police, asked me what time I had seen PorterâI said about ten o'clockâmy son asked me about itâthe time was not 9.30, because I was in bed, and Porter never came to my bedroom to talk to meâI did not say at the police court that it was 9.30âI did not look at the clock.

SABAH PAGE . I am the wife of John PageâI remember looking out of my window and seeing Porter talking to my husband on October 17th, and the police seeing him and me about Porter the following SundayâPorter and my husband were talking about twenty minutes.

ANNIE SCARF . I live at 5, New Crown Road, New Southgateâin October I lived next door to Mrs. Page at 1, Deacon VillasâI did not hear of the fire till the following WednesdayâI saw Porter on the Friday before that, at about 9.55, leave the side entrance of the Royal Oak when I went for a glass of beerâwhen I came out Porter was strolling up the other side of the roadâhe went up Walmer Roadâhe said "Good day" to some men with a roller, and then stood by a fence talking to PageâI saw Mrs. Page looking out of the windowâI came out a quarter of an hour afterwards and Porter was still there talking to Pageâthat was about 10.20âhe had his back to me, but he turned and faced me when I got up to himâI looked at the clock and found it was 10.25 when I got in doors again; the clock had stopped, and I went to the next garden and asked the occupier there the time, and he said, "ten to eleven"âas I was speaking I heard somebody coming along, and turned and saw Porter againâI stood a few minutes looking at Page's back garden, then he went towards the "Flag" public-houseâI can get to the Flag Staff in five minutesâI remember the time because I put the clock right, and ten minutes afterwards I heard the Asylum clock.

Cross-examined. I was in and out that morningâI was very busyâI had to get my husband's and son's dinner at twelveâthe clock that

stopped is on my kitchen mantelâI have another clock upstairsâI did not go upstairs to look at that because my neighbour always has the correct timeâhe keeps a watchâI have asked him the time on-several occasionsâthis time he was at the top of the gardenâPorter crossed the road to speak to Pageâit could not have been ten o'clock when they partedâthey only met at ten.

JOHN BOWDEN . I live at 3, Albion Cottages, East FinchleyâI am employed by Mr. PriceâI heard on the Saturday morning after the fire, of the fire at the farmâthe day before that I was out with my cart in the Pembroke and Sidney Roads about 9.45 a.m.âI went to Mrs. Smith's, in the Sidney Road, about 9.45, and came out about 10.45.

WILLIAM CLARKE STANSFIELD . I am a gauger, of 11, Muswell Rise, Muswell HillâI was in the Alexandra public-house on Saturday, October 17th, from nine to ten, and heard of the fireâI was in the little private barâI saw Porter in the public barâhe was not soberâI went to get some stamps for some correspondence, when the proprietor, Mr. Delamore, asked me to persuade Porter to leave the house without calling a constableâPorter waited till the constable took him awayâI did not hear Porter threaten to fire the haystackâI saw Whiting at the Alexandra on the Sunday previous to the prisoner's appearance on the WednesdayâWhiting beckoned for me to come outside, and we went to the back with MartinâMartin said, "You heard Wobbles say he set the stacks on fire?"âwe call Porter WobblesâI said, "No, I did not"âhe said, "Other people were there as well, and they heard him, and they won't open their mouths, you know you heard it"âI said, "No, I did not"âhe said, "You know you did; you come up to me on Wednesday, you know you will be well paid"âI said, "I did not hear the man say so"; he said, "You dare deny my words on Wednesday"; I said, "I have no interest, Mr. Martin, in the case at all."

Cross-examined. I did not go into the bar where Porter wasâI went co the door and beckoned to him to come and speak to meâI have known him all my life.

Be-examined. If he had said anything about the fire I should have leard it.

WALTER DELAMORE . I keep the Alexandra public-house, East FinchleyâI remember Porter being in the house on the night before the fire and asking Stansfield to get him outâStansfield was in the private bar, and I said to him, "You know Wobbles, if you coax him he will go out without the aid of the police"âStansfield went to the door of the public bar and beckoned to Porter, and said, "I want to speak to you," and Porter went outâStansfield came into the private bar for some stampsâI went through the partition into the other barâI was about two yards from the door Wobbles went out byâWobbles said, "I won't go unless you fetch a policeman, you know that"âhe did not say anything about the fire.

Cross-examined. The constable came and spoke to me on the Saturday out thisâhe asked me if I heard Porter's wordsâI did not tell him that was a little hard of hearingâI am only hard of hearing when I have a old in my headâthe constable asked me if I heard anything about the

fire, and I said, "No"âI cannot swear that I did not tell the constable that I was a bit hard of hearingâWhiting was in the bar when the prisoner came in; in the same bar as the prisonerâthe prisoner was making a good deal of noise.

Re-examined. He spoke very loudâhe was making good use of his voice.

NOT GUILTY .

FOURTH COURT.âSaturday, November 22nd, 1902.

Before Mr. Lumley Smith, K.C.

38. WILLIAM RICHARD HORSMAN (78) , Carnally knowing Emma Dilley, a girl above thirteen and under sixteen years of age.

MR. NICHOLSONProsecuted andMR. LEYCESTERDefended.

NOT GUILTY .

39. SAMUEL HOFFMAN (42) , Obtaining by false pretences from Siegfried Levy Â£65 and three cheques for Â£16 3s., Â£3 8s. 4d, and Â£1 3s. 6d., with intent to defraud: he was also indicted for that he, being a partner with Siegfried Levy, did steal the said moneys and cheques belonging to the partnership.

The prosecutor refusing to appear, MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

40. HARRY CLARK (23) and WILLIAM HAILES (28) , Robbery with violence on Thomas Sullivan, and stealing from him part of a chain and 18s. his property.

THOMAS SULLIVAN . I am a labourer, of 21, Caledonian Street, Islingtonâon Saturday, October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was outside the Duke of York public houseâHailes came up to me and snatched at my watch and chain, "breaking the chainâClark then struck me in the face twice and once in the stomach, knocking me downâhe then kicked me on my shoulderâI was unconscious for a minute or twoâwhen I came round I missed 18s. in silver from my left trousers pocketâI was taken home by a Mr. BarnesâI suffered from my face for eight or nine daysâon Monday, the 27th, I gave information to the policeâI saw the prisoners at the police station week laterâI immediately picked them out.

Cross-examined byMR. ARNOLD. I am in regular employment, and earn 23s. a weekâI had been into the Duke of York public house, but only lad one glass of bitter; I was quite soberâI did not see Clark in the public houseâI have seen the two prisoners hanging about Caledonian StreetâI know them by sight, but I have never spoken to themâI was kicked on my shoulder twiceâI have not been attended by a doctor.

Cross-examined byMR. GREEN. I am sure I had 18s., because I had justâcome out of doors and had looked at my moneyâit was the day of the Procession, and I did not get up till 10 o'clockâI only saw the two prisoners and two other men outside the public houseâHailes did not strike me at all.

BERTIE FIELD . I am a kitchen lad, of 13, Netherland Place, Caledonian Streetâon October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was outside the Duke of York public house, and saw four men attack Sullivanâthe prisoners are two of themâI saw Hailes snatch at Sullivan's watch chain, and heard him call Clarke to assist himâClark then came up and struck Sullivan in his face and in his stomach, knocking him downâI did not see Clark kick him, because a crowd gatheredâI heard Hailes say, "You have done for him Albert, away," and the prisoners then ran offâon Sunday, November 2nd, I was called to the police station and identified ClarkâI identified Hailes the following day.

Cross-examined byMR. ARNOLD. I cannot say whether any of the other men from whom I picked out Clark were clean shavenâI distinctly saw Clark strike the prosecutorâI have often seen Clark hanging about the Duke of York.

Cross-examined byMR. GREEN. Clark was wearing an overcoatâwhen the crowd came up the prisoners were running awayâI did not chase them, because I knew I could pick them outâI did not see Hailes strike the prosecutorâI have not seen him hanging about.

GEORGE FREDERICK BARNES . I am a railway porter, of 3, Caledonian Streetâon October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was looking out of my windowâI saw Clark and another man walking sharp down the streetâI had suspicions, and turned my head toâthe left and saw the prosecutor being picked upâI did not see the assaultâI told the prosecutor to mention my name, as he was going to the policeâon November 2nd I saw Clark at a coffee stall in the Euston RoadâI pointed him out to the police, and he was arrested.

Cross-examined byMR. ARNOLD. The prisoners were walking away from the prosecutorâI have known Clark about sixteen yearsâClark was putting on his overcoat as he passed my window.

Cross-examined byMR. GREEN. I have many times seen Clark and Hailes together.

WALTER SELBY (Detective G.) On October 27th the prosecutor made a complaint to meâin the evening of the same day he brought Barnes to the station, who gave me certain informationâin consequence of that information Clark was arrested at 1 a.m. on November 2ndâI did not arrest him, I saw him at Praed Street Police StationâJ told him I should take him to King's Cross Road Police Station on suspicion of being concerned with three other men not in custody in assaulting and robbing a can in Caledonian Street on Saturday, October 25thâhe made no replyâconveyed him to King's Cross Road Police Station, and later in the day he was placed with seven other men and at once identified by the prosecutor and Fieldâhe was then charged, and made no reply.

JOHN FRANKLAND (241 G.) I arrested Hailes at 9.20 p.m. on Sunday, November 2nd, in the Duke of York public-house, York RoadâI told him should arrest him on suspicion of being concerned with several other men in an assault on October 25thâhe replied, "I do not know anything about it"âhe was taken to the station, and the next morning placed

with seven other men, and positively identified by the prosecutor and Field when charged he said, "I never struck the man at all."

Cross-examined byMR. GREEN. He did not say, "I never struck a man in my life."

HARRY BAILEY . I am barman at the Duke of York, Caledonian Streetâabout 3 p.m. on October 25th I saw the prosecutor in the barâI served him with a glass of bitterâhe was quite sober.

Cross-examined byMR. ARNOLD. I did not see Clark or Hailes that afternoonâI heard no row in the bar.

Clark, in his defence on oath, said that he was in the Duke of York having a drink with a Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, and Mr. and Mrs. Cooper began quarrelling, when Sullivan interfered; that he told him not to interfere with a man and his wife; that one word brought up another, and that they went outside and had a fair fight.

Hailes, in his defence on oath, said that he was not with Clark on October 25th, butâwas selling bananas in Kentish Town.

GUILTY . Clark then

PLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on May 14th, 1902, and Hailes to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on July 18th, 1899. One other conviction was proved against Clark and ten against Hailes. CLARK, two years' hard labour; HAILES, three years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT.âMonday and Tuesday, October 24th and 25th, 1902.

Before Mr. Justice Bigham.

41. MAX MOSES (22), SAMUEL OREMAN (24), and BARNETT BROZISKERSKY (30), were indicted for , and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Henry Brodovitz.

HARRY WOODLEY (343 H.) Produced and proved a plan of the White Hart public-house and York Minster Music Hall, and also one of the neighbourhood.

ABRAHAM HARRISON . I am a tailor's presser, of 30, Brunswick Street, St. Georgesâthe deceased was a shopman, and about twenty-four years oldâhe lived with his wife at 56, Buxton Street, Whitechapelâon Saturday, October 4th, about 2.30 p.m., I met him coming out of Plumbers Road by Black Lane YardâI went with him to a cook shop in Church Laneâbeforeâwe got there, we met Moses; he was coming from Commercial Road; he was aloneâI knew him by sightâI had never spoken to himâI went into the cook shop with the deceased, there were several people thereâafter I had been there a little time, Oreman came in; he is always called Monge; I knew him before, he used to sell fishâanother man whom I knew came into the cook shop; his name is Cooksey LewisâMonge said to Cook-sey, "Now is the time I should have a fair fight with you"âCooksey said "No," he did not want to fightâthe deceased said to Monge. "If you do want to fight, fight one your own size"âMonge said, "I don't want to fight anybody, I have only got the needle with Cooksey"âhe meant that he

was only vexed with Cookseyâthe deceased said, "If you don't want to go away without fighting, or if you exactly want to fight, my duty is to take his part, because he is a countryman of mine"âhe meant take Cooksey's partâMonge said to the deceased, "I don't want to fight you now, but for taking his part, I shall watch you, and whenever I get hold of you I shall Kill you"âMonge then went down the steps and out of the cook shopâI could see through the window; Max (Moses) was downstairs with two or three more, and they all went away togetherâone of the other men was named Charles Greenâthe deceased and I did not remain in the cook shop very long; we left together, and parted outsideâI went towards my home, and he went towards hisâI next saw him the same evening in the hospital, deadânext day I went to the Arbour Square Police Station, where I saw Maxâlater that same day I was at the Thames Police Court, and picked Monge out from fourteen others.

Cross-examined. I have known Max ten or twelve monthsâI was not friendly with himâI was not a friend of the deceased, but we came from the same town, from VilnaâI liked himâI do not know if I disliked Max or not; I did not know himâI had no ill-feeling towards himâI went into the cook shop to have a cup of tea with the deceasedâI do not know if the man who keeps the coffee shop is named SelvitzkyâI have always seen a woman thereâthere were three or four of my countrymen in the shop on that afternoonâI do not know their namesâI have never been in there beforeâI have been in London about thirteen yearsâI am a member of a society, not the Bessarabian Society, or the Odessa SocietyâI have heard of the Bessarabian SocietyâI cannot say if it is composed of Polish Jewsâ"Cooksey was not sitting at my table in the cook shopâI do not know who was sitting at Cooksey's tableâMonge was not sitting at all; he went up to Cooksey; there was no quarrel between themâMonge said he wanted to fight him, Cooksey did not ask what for.

COOKSEY LEWIS . I am a baker of 11 Boyd Streetâon Saturday, October 4th, I was at a cook shop in Church LaneâI knew the deceased and HarrisonâI saw them while I was in the shop; they did not come in togetherâI know Monge, I saw him in the cook shop, he came in after the other menâhe said to me, "I want you for a fight"âI did not say anything to himâthe deceased said to him, "There are no fights at present; if you will fight him, I will take his part"âMonge said to the deceased, "I don't want to fight you, and if you take his part I will watch you and kill you"âMonge then went outâI was sitting at the windowâI saw him descending the stairsâhe met Max, and they went away togetherâI only knew Max by sight.

Cross-examined. I come from Vilnaâthe deceased and Harrison were not friends of mine, only countrymenâI have never quarrelled with MaxâI was at the York Minster Music Hall on the Saturday before the deceased was killedâI did not see Max thereâI was prosecuted by the police because I was present at a drink at the music hallâI was not prosecuted for smashing a window in the music hall barâwill swear that I did not break a window in the barâI was fined 10s. 6d. by the Magistrateâthe police did not state before the Magistrateâthat

Max and I had a quarrel, and that I took out a knifeâI was drunk, and the Magistrate fined me for thatâMax did not make my nose bleed on that Saturday.

HYMAN COLMAN . I am a painter of 79, Plumbers RowâI knew the deceasedâon Saturday evening, October 4th, I and my brother Israel, and the deceased, went to the York Minster-Music Hallâthere is a passage there which leads up to the pay box; as we were going up to the pay box the three prisoners came downstairs; when I went to pay the money at the pay box the prisoners started to fight usâI cannot say who started firstâthey did not speak thenâI cleared out into the streetâthey followed me, and Max said to me, "Are you here?"âI said, "What have you got to do with me? you have not got anything to do with me; why interfere?"âI then went homeâI knew Max before, but only by sightâI have known Barnett (Broziskersky) about two yearsâI had never seen the three together before this occasion; I have seen Barnett and Max together.

Cross-examined. I had a quarrel with Max about three or four months agoâI come from VilnaâI was a friend of the deceasedâI knew Harrison, when I came to London about five years agoâI know Cooksey Lewis, he is a countryman of mineâwe are not all members of a societyâI have heard of the Bessarabian SocietyâI do not know what it is; it is composed of Russians, I believeâI know Selvitzky, he keeps the cook shop in Church Lane; he does not come from VilnaâI have heard he is now in prisonâI have known him about a yearâI have been to his shop once or twiceâI did not go there and meet my friends on this SaturdayâI was with my master till 3.30, then I went into a public house and played bagatelle till six o'clockâI did not do anything after that till I went to the music hallâI know Lewis MillerâI do not know that he keeps a cook shop in Back Church LaneâI know the shopâI did not go about-6.45 to the shop with the deceased or Selvitzky, or Krovesky, or Shamos, or TanenbaumâI had not got a bottleâI do not know if the other men had weapons because I was not thereâI do not know if the deceased had a piece of iron up his sleeve with the end of it projectingâmy brother was not outside with meâat 6.45 I was in the public-house or at the corner of the streetâthat is the proper place for me because I am a painter, and there is a paper shop there, and I meet my friends thereâI did not hear the deceased go into Miller's shop and say to him, "Where is Max?"; or Miller say, "Why?" or the deceased say, "Because we are going to kill him to-night"âI got to he music hall about 7 or 7.30âI went with my brother; the deceased, and another manâthe prisoners started fighting us in the passageâthat was before the play commencedâI never got further into the music hall than the pay boxâI ran awayâI went into the Whitechapel Road, and about 8 p.m. I heard of the deceased's deathâI did not go back to the music hallâI did not go into the music hall bar at all that nightâI cannot remember if I went in or not, but I never spoke to anyoneâI do not know a man named ShalinskyâI did not say to Shalinsky, "Are you one of the mob?"âhe did not say, "Why?" and I did not say, "Because there will he murder to-night"âI had not got a ginger-beer bottle with meâit is

not true that I and my brother, and the deceased, and forty or fifty others went into the music hall, all armed.

ISRAEL COLMAN . I am a painter of 27, Norfolk Street, Shoreditchâon Saturday, October 4th, I met my brother Hyman in Plumber's Row, and shortly afterwards we met the deceasedâwe all went to the York Minster Music Hallâwe went towards the pay box, and had got near the stairs leading from the hall when I saw the three prisoners coming down the stairsâMax hit the deceased in the front of his face with his fistâI went towards the street; the prisoners came into the streetâI saw a knife in Max's hand, it was open when he took it outâI ran away then to Plumber's RowâMonge and Barnett were with himâI ran through Field gate Street by the back side of the London Hospital, Philpot Street, and Oxford StreetâI stayed away ten or fifteen minutesâas I was returning I met Max at the corner of Settle Streetâhe was aloneâhe said, "Are you following me?"âI said, "Me? No"âhe got me by the shoulder and took out an open knifeâI pulled away from him and ran up Plumber's Row againâI do not know if he followed me, he did not catch meâI saw no more of him that nightâI saw him next day at the police station, when I picked him out from a number of othersâOn October 14th I saw Monje at the station, and picked him outâI did not see Barnett till he was in the dock at the police court.

Cross-examined. I come from Vilnaâthe deceased was a pal of mineâI have never had a quarrel with Max, nor has my brother to my knowledgeâat 6.30 p.m. on October 4th I was in Plumber's RowâI then went to the music hallâI was not with fifty or sixty other men going down Back Church LaneâI had not got a bottle or piece of iron with me, nor had my brother or the deceasedâI know Lewis Miller, who keeps a restaurant in Back Church LaneâI did not call there with my brother, and Cooksey, and Harrison, and many others on my way to the music hallâI did not go into the restaurant with my brother and the deceased, and say, "Where is Max?"; Miller did not say"Why," and the deceased did not say, "We are going to kill him to-night"âI did not see any men armed with bottles that nightâI did not see a fight going on in which 200 people were taking partâI did not see a policeman draw his truncheon to protect himself, at the corner of Turner Street and Varden StreetâI did not see any bottles thrownâI saw Max strike the deceasedâI did not see the deceased strike himâI do not know how many men were taking part in the fightâI saw the deceased strike Max with his hand, that was after Max had struck himâI saw Prior thereâI did not see the deceased with a knuckle dusterâI did not see anything in his handâI did not see a crowd throw Max to the groundâI only stopped for about two minutesâI wasânot running after MaxâI did not go back to see the performance at the music hall, because I was afraidâI did not take my ticket to go into the music hall because I did not get the chance, as I did not get as far as the pay box.

Re-examined. I was afraid of Max when he started to fightâhe struck the first blow, then the deceased struck him, and then I saw the knife.

SOLOMON SHAMOS . On Saturday, October 4th, I went to the York

Minster Music Hall to see the Jewish playâI remember being in Philpot Street, outside the music hallâsome people came out, Monge was among themâthe people who came out ran up the street, and were fighting continuously to the corner of the street; there were a great many people inâthe streetâI saw Monge holding the deceased, and I saw another man, who I think was Max, but I am not quite sure, delivering blows at himâI cannotâsay with what because I was too far awayâthe deceased called out, "Oh, you have given me a blow; Max, you gave me a blow; Oh, Max, you have Jailed me"âMax and Monge ran away in one direction, and the deceased ran towards the White Hartâabout ten minutes afterwardsâI was going home, and I passed the public-house, and I saw the deceasedâthereâthe door was a little ajarâas I was passing, four or five people ran outâI saw the deceased lying on the floor on his right side, with his hand up to his faceâI did not go into the public-houseânext day I went to the police stationâI saw a number of men there, and picked out Max.

Cross-examined. I come from RussiaâI have been in England about a year, and am an under-presserâI did not know the deceased or the ColmansâI knew Selvitzky, but he is not a friend of mineâat 6.45 p.m. on. October 4th I was in James Street at the house of a countryman of mineâI was not in Back Church LaneâI have seen Lewis Miller, but he is not the owner of a cook shop, he is a grinderâthe deceased did not run into Miller's shop with me about 6.45 and say, "Where is Max, we want to kill him"âI did not know where Back Church Lane isâI was with fifty or sixty people in Rack Church LaneâI saw a great many people outside the music hallâI had not got a bottleâI went to the music hall to see the play, but I did not see itâI did not go there to create a disturbanceâI saw some bottles thrown at the people who came out of the music hall by the people outsideâperhaps fifty or sixty or seventy people were there, but not many bottles were thrownâI was standing about twenty or thirty steps from the deceased when he was struckâI do not say that it was Max who struck himâI did not see anybody in the White Hart besides the decease.

SIMON TANENBAUM . I was in Philpot Street on October 4thâI saw a number of people run towards Varden StreetâI went into Varden StreetâI saw Monje holding the deceased, and I saw Max draw an open knife from his right jacket pocketâthen Monje left the deceased alone, and also drew a knifeâI then received a blow with a bottle which Barnettâthrew, and I could not see any more of itâI heard someone say, "You have stabbed me"âI was running and calling for the policeâI went to the London Hospital and had my wound dressed, and then I spoke to the policeâabout 9 or 10 the same night I went to Arbour Square Police Station and picked Barnett out of ten othersâI was at the station till 3 or 4 a.m., and on Sunday I went there again and picked Max out from about ten others.

Cross-examined. I did not know Max before thisâI had seen him at the music hall about a fortnight beforeâI did not go to the music half on the Saturday before this with Cooksey Lewis to create a disturbanceâI have never been to a place called WonderlandâI have been in England

about three yearsâI know SelvitzkyâI do not know where he is nowâI am not a Bessarabian, nor is. SelvitzkyâI went to the-music hall to see the play, but I did not see it because I saw people coming out and I ran awayâI did not hit Barnett over the head with a bottleâI did not have a bottleâI did not see any bottlesâI did not see fifty or sixty people throwing bottles outside the music hallâI did not try to strike the policemanâI did not see a crowd of 200 people round himâI did not see a policeman.

SIMON KROVESKY . I am a presser, of 35, Brantridge StreetâI remember being near the York Minister Music Hall on a Saturday nightâI do not remember the dateâI saw the three prisonersâMax had a knife in his hand, and when I got near he lifted his hand with the knifeâI ducked and suddenly felt that I was bleeding from the back of my headâMonge and Barnett were near byâI said to Max; "What have you against me?'âI only knew him by sightâBarnett then struck me with something hard on my jaw and I fell downâthey ran awayâBarnett was the last to runâI wanted to intercept them, but could notâI went to the hospital "to have my wound dressed, and the police took me from there to the station, where I saw Barnett and picked him outânext day I picked Max and Monge out.

Cross-examined. I come from VilnaâI did not know the deceasedâI and Hyman Colman did not have a quarrel with Max two months before thisâonce at an entertainment I was drunk and I was assaulted by Maxâit was long before the Saturday previous to the death of the deceasedâsince that assault I was afraid of Max, and did not speak to himâI was told afterwards that the fighter from Wonderland had been fighting with meâI had not been to Wonderland to see Max boxâI was going to the music hall on this Saturday night to see the play, but did not go inside the music hall.

ARTHUR PRYOR (145 E.) On Saturday, October 4th, I was on duty at the York Minster Music HallâI saw Max and Monge in the sixpenny seatsâMonge was sitting by a femaleâMax was standing up with his foot on a formâhe said to me, "I expect a bit of a fight here to-night from the mob that was here last Saturday night"âI said, "All right, if any of them come in here will you show me who they are?"âI did not know him then, but I thought he' was one of the hall officialsâa little later I was standing in the doorway leading into the streetâMax came down the stairs with several othersâI did not see either of the other prisoners thenâthey all went straight across the road into Varden Streetâanother body of men came up from Newark Street, and when they all got half way up Varden Street they started fightingâMax and his friends did not seem excited when they left the hallâI went up with Thompson, another constable, to where they were fightingâwe dispersed the crowdâThompson went towards the White Hart, and I went down Turner Street towards Commercial RoadâI was following a body of men thenâI went to the corner of Nelson Street and they started fighting againâI attempted to stop themâI recognised Barnett inâthe' crowdâhe made a blow at me with his fist and I struck him with my truncheonâI was rejoined by Thompson at the corner of Nelson Street and Turner Street in the

centre of the crowdâwe went towards Varden Street and along Turner Streetâthere was no crowd then at the corner of Varden StreetâI heard cries of murder proceeding from the direction of the New RoadâI went down VardenâStreet and found Samuel Pelowitzch covered with bloodâhe was holding a man named Abraham Steinberg by the collar, who I took to the station.

Cross-examined. I believe the performance at the music hall is supposed to commence at 7.30âthe ticket office is on a level with the pavementâthere is a flight of steps leading into the auditoriumâthere are no boxes or stalls thereâwhen I saw Max in the auditorium the performance had not commencedâhe was quiet, and waiting for the performance to commenceâMonge was not sitting next to himâI do not recollect seeing Barnett thereâI do not know if there had been p row on the previous Saturday, I was not on duty thenâwhen Max came downstairs with the other men they were quietâthere was nothing approaching a disturbance on their partâthey walked through the passage into the streetâI saw no disturbance of any sort in the passageâI saw Israel Colman in the passageâI did not see a knife in Max's hand as he came towards me in the passageâhe was not preventing people from taking their ticketsâa hostile body of men was standing outsideâthere were about fifty or sixty thereâthey did not present a hostile appearance at that timeâMax and the others joined that party and the whole lot started fightingâonly about fifteen men came out of the music hall, but they mingled with the fifty or sixty, and others joined them till there were about 200âthere was a free fight and yells and shoutsâI tried to take on the 200, it was my duty to do what I couldâthe people did nothing to me at first, then they said, "Let's out him," which I should say meant kill me if they got the chanceâI did not recognise Shamos as one of the combatantsâI cannot say what took place in the scrimmageâwhen I saw Israel Colman at the ticket office he was with about eight others, and when he arrived Max had already paid his money and gone inâI have been in this division nearly five years, but I have been to the Front for 2 1/2 yearsâI have seen a good deal of fighting in the East End on Saturday nightsâI would rather be in South Africa than in a fight like this one where I was not sure of my backâI saw no blow dealt with a knife.

Re-examined. The only wounded man I saw was in the New RoadâI did not give my attention to the Turner Street corner and Varden Streetâmy attention was not called to the deceasedâI did not know then that a man had been struck with a knife or that he went to the White HartâI could see down the whole of the passage of the music hallâI was looking up the passage, but nothing attracted my attention in it.

ISAAC THOMPSON (425 H.) On October 24th, I helped the last witness to disperse the crowdâI first observed the crowd in Philpot Street, and I helped to disperse it at the corner of Varden Street and Turner StreetâI saw the people fighting at the corner of Nelson Street and Turner Street, and I helped to disperse them againâI then went with the last witness to the New Road, where we found a man stabbed in the head.

Cross-examined. I should say close upon 100 people took part in this

fightâI saw about fifteen people crossing from the direction of the music hallâI was not on duty at the music hall on the previous Saturday.

Re-examined. I did not see the fighting begin in Philpot Street.

By theCOURT. It is not usual for large crowds to assemble outside the music hall.

HENRY CHARLES GROSE . I am a carman, of 48, Waldon Street, Mile Endâon October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was playing at bagatelle in a side room of the White Hart, when I heard a rush and someone call outâI ran out and into the public bar, where the deceased was lying on the floor in the cornerâhe was not bleeding thenârather a lot of people came in from the street, and amongst them MaxâI saw a knuckle-duster lying upon the ground about a foot from the deceasedâMax then pushed past me and picked it up, saying, "I will give you india rubber mob"âI do not know what he meant by that expressionâhe then went out into the street and joined Barnett and some other menâI followed them to Back Church LaneâI left them there and came back to the White HartâI went into the bar again, and then saw blood coming from the deceased's bodyâI saw Inspector Pickett there, and informed him of what I knew, and went with him to Back Church Laneâat the corner I saw about twenty people, among whom was BarnettâI seized hold of him and the rest of the crowd ran awayâI left Barnett with the inspector and followed those that ran away, but did not come up with them.

Cross-examined. Max was wearing a Raglan coat and a bowler hatâa number of other people came into the bar at the same time as he didâI did not see Flerty in the barâI did not hear what he is supposed to have saidâI saw no struggling in the barâthe first I heard was the proprietor, who said, "Come on, old chap, we cannot have you lying here; you will have to get outside"âthe deceased said, "I cannot, I am stabbed."

ARTHUR PRYOR (Re-examined). When I saw Max he was wearing a Raglan overcoat and a bowler hatâI was not asked the question at the police court.

JOSEPH HAIMOVITCH . I am a cabinet maker, of 24, Bedford Streetâon Saturday, October 4th, I was in Philpot Street and saw three men running towards Commerical RoadâI know Turner Street and the White Hart, public houseâI heard Max say, "It is done"âI do not know where they were running toâon October 6th I identified Max at Arbour Square Police Station.

Cross-examined. I come from RussiaâI do not know MaxâI have never been to WonderlandâI have known Hyman and Israel Colman about six monthsâI do not know that they are enemies of MaxâI have only known Harrison since this case beganâI have never spoken to Barnett or Monge, and do not know whether they can speak EnglishâMax said, "It is done" in Englishâhe was about ten feet from me at the timeâI saw the deceased in the bar of the White Hart public house, and saw blood near his headâI did not see anybody else in the barâI had known the deceased four or five monthsâI am not a member of the Bessarabian SocietyâI was not with fifty or sixty other men in Back Church Lane

at seven o'clock that eveningâI did not kick Max, nor did I see anyone else kick himâhe was wearing a short coat.

EDWARD AMBROSE I am a registered medical practitioner, and practise at 1, Mile End Roadâon the evening of October 4th I was called to the White Hart public houseâinside the bar I saw the deceasedâhe was alive, but he died six or seven minutes afterwardsâI examined him, and found a wound on the left side of his head and one over-the lower end of the breast boneâhe was bleeding from bothâI dressed the wound in the thoraxâI afterwards assisted in the post-mortem examinationâin the abdomen I found a clean-cut wound seven-eighths of an inch long and six inches deepâit penetrated the pericardium and the liverâin my opinion, the wound in the heart was the cause of deathâterrible force must have been usedâit could have been caused by a knifeâthe wound in the head was probably caused by a fall.

Cross-examined. The wound in the abdomen might have been caused by a knife with a four-inch blade, it depends upon the strength of the blowâa wound penetrating the heart may not cause instantaneous deathâa man so injured might live a quarter of an hour if lying downâI cannot say whether he could run fifty yardsâI have not known of such a case.

Re-examined. His clothes were swamped with blood.

FRANK GIRDLER (Detective E.) When Max was in custody on October 5th I stripped him of his clothes, and gave them on the 6th to Dr. Graham GrantâI noticed a stain on the right wrist of the shirtâit seemed to me like bloodâhe was not wearing an overcoatâTannebaum came to the station about ten o'clock and remained till four o'clock the next morning.

Cross-examined. The witnesses made their statements through Mr. Cohen, who acted as interpreterâall the witnesses stayed till 4 a.m.âTannebaum had been to the hospital before he came to the stationâI did not search Max's house; I do not know who did.

CHARLES GRAHAM GRANT (Divisional Surgeon H.) On October 4th I examined Tannebaum, and found that he had a wound half an inch deep on his left temple in an upward directionâit could have been inflicted with a knifeâI also saw Kroveskyâhe had a wound on his jaw, but of no gravityâon the 6th the police brought some clothing to me to examineâon the right sleeve of the shirt on the fore-arm I found a blood-stainâan attempt had been made to wash it outâon the 13th another set of garments was given me for examination, and I found a small blood-stain on the lining of the right sleeve of the coatâI should not attach much importance to that stain.

Cross-examined. The clothes given me on the 6th belonged to MaxâI was not given an overcoatâthere was no blood upon the suitâthe bloodstain on the shirt was up to the level of the elbowâit was as big as the palm of my handâthere was no wound on Max's arm corresponding with itâI examined Max, Krovesky, Tannebaum, Steinberg, and BarnettâBarnett was smothered with bloodâhe had a trifling wound on his head and a cut on his thumbâthe wound on the head might have been caused with a bottleâSteinberg was covered with blood, but had no injury at allâI have not seen him since I examined him.

Re-examined. A man stabbed in the heart might be able to run fifty yardsâthe wound on Barnett's head was not consistent with a blow with a truncheon.

JOHN PICKETT (Police Inspector H.) On October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was in Philpot Street and saw some people running in Turner StreetâI made my way to the White Hart public-houseâjust inside the public bar door I saw the deceased lying on his back bleeding from a wound in his chestâhe was insensibleâI saw Grose there, who gave me informationâin consequence I went with him to Back Church LaneâI saw a number of men standing at the cornerâGrose pointed Barnett out to me, and I said to him, "I shall take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned in stabbing a man in Turner Street"âhis left hand was in bandages, and he held it up and said, "This is what I got through trying to take a knife from a man"âI obtained assistance and took him to Arbour Square Police Stationâhe made a statement there through an interpreter.

Cross-examined. Neither Steinberg nor Pelowitzch were called as witnesses at the police-courtâI have not seen Steinberg since October 6thâI saw Pelowitzch at the inquest on October 6thâI did not take any of the men to the hospital.

FREDERICK WENSLEY (Detective-Sergeant H.) On October 5th I went to 33, Wharfedale Road, King's Cross, where I saw MaxâI said "I am a police officer, and shall arrest you for the wilful murder of a man in Turner Street, last night"âhe said, "I was there, but I did not kill him"âhe afterwards said, "Last night I was with some pals at the York Minster Music Hall; someone told me the Bessarabian Mob was outside; I went out; someone threw a bottle at me; I had a fight and went away; one of my pals is in the hospital; the row was all over me; if that man had not died Â£15 would have squared it"âhe was then taken to the stationâI know Barnett and MongeâI have frequently seen them with Max.

Cross-examined. I searched Max's houseâhe was at home when I got thereâI do not know whether he slept there the previous nightâI did not find a Raglan overcoat in the houseâMax's statement was made in Englishâhe speaks very good EnglishâI do not think I should have much difficulty in finding Steinberg or Pelowitzch.

JAMES COLE (73 H.) I was on duty outside Leman Street Police Station at 2 a.m. on October 13th, when Monge came up to me and said, "I want to give myself up; the boys say the police want me about the fight the other night; I am Sam, they call me Monge"âhe was taken inside and detained.

SAMUEL COHEN . I live at 17, Surrey Street, Finsbury SquareâI know Yiddish perfectlyâon October 4th I was called to Arbour Square Police Station to act as interpreterâI there saw BarnettâI told him that he would be charged with others' with wilfully and maliciously wounding Simon Tannebaum and Samuel Kroveskyâhe said, "Are you sure I have had a bottle in my possession?" I did knock Krovesky about, but not Tannebaum"âI had not mentioned any weaponâon the 14th I saw Monge at the same stationâI saw the three prisoners at the police-courtâI told them that they would be charged with the wilful murder of Henry Brodovitz,

on October 4th, between seven and eight, in Varden Street or there aboutsâMonge said, "I reported myself after hearing that I was wanted concerning this murder"âMoses made no replyâBarnett said, "I know nothing at all about it; I had a fight with Krovesky, but I do not know anything at all about the murder"âI also told them that they would be charged with wounding Tannebaum and Krovesky, and they made no reply.

THOMAS DIVALL . (Detective Inspector H.) On the morning of October 14th I saw Monge at Leman Street Stationâhe was taken to Arbour Square Station, and put with the other prisoners, and charged with the wilful murder of Brodovitz.

Cross-examined. It was ten days after the murder that Monge surrendered himself.

HARRY APPLEBAUM . I live at 9, Bristol Street, Stepney, and am interpreter and manager at the York Minster Music Hallâon October 4th the doors were opened about 7.15âthe prisoners came to the hall togetherâthey took Is tickets and went upstairsâabout fifteen minutes afterwards they came downâI cannot remember if they took pass-out tickets or not, but they crossed over to the other side of the roadâthat is all I know.

Cross-examined. The performance commenced at 7.30âthe doors opened at sevenâthe prisoners were quiet when they arrived at 7.15âI was sometimes upstairs and sometimes downâat the police-court I said, "They took pass-out tickets," but I am not sure-if a man takes a pass-out ticket he has the right to come in againâhe would not be allowed in again without a pass-out ticketâI saw the prisoners go down the passage into the streetâthere was no disturbance as they were going outâI do not remember seeing Israel or Hyman Colman there that nightâthere was nothing to prevent them taking their tickets if they desired to do soâI did not see any knife in Max's hand as he went down the passageâI did not see the deceased in the passage, or anyone else except the prisonersâI did not see where the prisoners went to when they left the music hallâthere had been a disturbance at the music hall on the previous Saturdayâthe authorities charged several people, and locked up the man who smashed the windowâI do not know what charge was made at the police-courtâI did not charge the manâI was not thereâI did not see the man who smashed the windowâI do not know the man who was prosecutedâI did not see any of the witnesses for the prosecution engaged in the disturbance.

Re-examined. I spoke to the constable who was at the hall on October 4thâthe prisoners had been to the hall on the previous Saturday with two or three othersâon October 4th they came with three othersâI do not know if they were the same men who had come on the previous SaturdayâI made a statement to the police, which was taken down, and I signed itâI said, "I saw Moses, Barnett, and Monge, and three other men all of whom I know well by sight, come in, and they each took tickets for the Is part. They went upstairs, and I seated them"âthat is rightâI saw six men come inâI do not remember if I said that I had spoken

to the constable, and told him that I was afraid, as the men had gone out without taking pass-out tickets, that there was mischief brewing.

By theCOURT. When the prisoners went out I was standing near the ticket-box and opposite the door of the bar.

Evidence for the defence.

ABRAHAM NEIMANN . I am a tailorâI have been in England twenty-three yearsâI did not know the deceasedâon October 4th I left the Synagogue, in Cannon Street, Commercial Road, about 7.5 or 7.10 p.m.âI was going to my home in Berkley Street Buildings, I passed the corner of Backchurch Lane, and saw a mob of fifty people at the cornerâI saw the Colmans thereâHyman had a big knife in his hand, and Israel had got a chiselâI saw Shamos and Lewis were there, Lewis had a round piece of iron in his handâTannebaum was thereâI could not see if he had anything in his hand, because he was runningâHyman Colman said. "Where is Monge and where is Max? To-night will be the end of them"âLewis was dancing, and said, "To-night I will be happy, there will be a joyful event "âI know SelvitzkyâI do not know if he keeps a coffee shop, he said he was a presserâI saw him there, he had a knife in his uplifted handâI could not see what sort of a knife it was, I only saw the bladeâI saw Steinberg coming from the Commercial Roadâhe had a knife in his handâhe said to the crowd,"What do you stand here for? Come along, Monge and Max are in the play"âI saw Haimovitch and Krovesky thereâKrovesky had a knife in his handâall the men ran towards the music hallâI did not go with them.

Cross-examined. I can swear there were fifty people in the crowd outside Miller'sâat the police court I said twenty or twenty-five people, and that Cooksey had a small open knife in his handâhe had not got a piece of iron, that was another manâbefore the magistrate I did not say anything about Haimovitch being thereâI said that Krovesky had a knifeâI did not say anything about TannebaumâI did not see two policemen in Back-church Lane at 7 o'clock on October 4th, outsider Miller's shop.

GEORGE GREEN . I am a fishmonger, of 68, Wenton Street Buildings, Spitalfieldsâon October 4th, between 2.30 and 3 p.m., I was in a restaurant at 1, Union Street, Commercial Road, having some foodâI knew the deceased by sightâhe came into the restaurant with eight moreâhe asked a man sitting by my side where Macoy was, that is Max's nicknameâthe man said, "He is not in"âthe deceased said, "I will give it Macoy, if I get hold of him there will be nothing left of him"âKrovesky was one of the men with himâI know Max by sightâI have been to Wonderland at the East End National Sporting ClubâI have seen Max boxing there, he has the reputation in that part of London of being an expert boxerâI know Monge, he used to work for a gentleman and buy fishâI do not now Barnett.

Cross-examined. I have known Max three or four yearsâI do not know him very wellâI have had no transactions with himâMax Macoy is his boxing nameâI have seen him box two or three times at WonderlandâI have known Monge about nine monthsâhe worked for Mr. Roother,

and my stall was next hisâI did not hear what Harrison said at the police court before I gave my evidenceâI was outside the Court, nobody told me what he saidâI did not hear what Cooksey said at the police court, and no one told me what he saidâI read a newspaper report of the inquestâI did not read Harrison's evidenceâI read some of the other evidenceâI read some of Harrison's evidence, but I do not quite remember what I have readâthe restaurant in Union Street is kept by a man named WolwelâI do not know that the deceased is said to have been in the cook shop in Church Lane at 2.30 on this dayâI did not notice that in the evidence of Harrisonâthe two-shops are only about two minutes walk apart.

Re-examined. I did not say that it was exactly at 2.30 that the deceased was in the restaurant in Union StreetâI said between 2.30 and 3.

HARRIS SHALINSKY . I am a painter of 120, New Goldsmith StreetâI have been in this country about twelve yearsâon October 4th I went to the York Minster Music Hall, at 7 p.m.âbefore the performance commenced I went downstairs with a friend named Isodore Shor to have a drink in the barâwe both took pass-out ticketsâHyman Colman came into the barâhe said to me, "Have your drink and go home"âI said, "Why?"âhe said, "Because I am a friend of yours; go homeâ" I said, "Why should I go home?"âhe said, "Because there is going to be murder to-night"âI said, "Who are you going to murder?"âhe said, "Don't ask no questions, but go home"âI had my drink and went up into the play again, and saw the whole of the performanceâI saw Max and Monge in the music hallâthey are not friends of mine.

Cross-examined. I may have met them in the road beforeâI have seen them together sometimesâI said before the magistrate, "I knew them as friends to one another"âvery likely that is true, but I did not know themâI do not know how many times I attended at the police court before I gave evidence, it was several timesâI did not know what Hyman Colman said in the witness 'box.

ISODORE SHOR . I am a traveller in drapery, of 24, Godfrey HouseâI have been in England about seven yearsâon October 4th I went with Shalinsky to the York Minster Music Hallâwe went into the bar outsideâHyman Colman came inâhe said to Shalinsky, "Harry, we are going to have a fight, don't mix up, go home because there will be murder"âShalinsky said, "Why murder, what do you mean?"âColman said, "Don't ask questions, take my advice and go home"âhe went awayâI saw the performance after I had seen the fight.

Cross-examined. The conversation was in YiddishâI did not see Colman in the passage of the theatreâI saw him later on in the street taking part in the fightâI saw eight or ten people go quietly from the theatre into the streetâMax and Barnett were among them, it was a few minutes after that that the row began.

MORRIS GOLDSMITH . I have been in England about eighteen years, and have been a Hebrew teacher fourteen or fifteen yearsâI know a little English, but I cannot speak to gentlemenâI knew the deceased, he was a countryman of mineâon October 4th I saw a number of people running in Philpot Streetâthe deceased was with themâhe was holding an iron

or a barâI asked him what he was going to do with itâhe said, "I am going to kill"âI said, "Where are you running with that piece of iron in your hand? you may kill somebody with this iron"âhe said, "I am going to kill him, I have a good number of people with me"âhe did not say who he was going to killâI followed the peopleâthey went into Varden Street and Turner StreetâI saw Max on the ground being kicked by the peopleâas I knew him I said, "Max, you had better run away, you can see all the people have weapons and irons"âhe got up and made his way towards WhitechapelâI went to my houseâMax had not got a weapon in his handâI saw a cap and a jacket on the ground near himâKrovesky was kicking MaxâIsrael Colman was kneeling on him and kicking him, and Hyman Colman was also kicking himâI cannot identify anybody else who was kicking himâI may have seen Barnett but I do not know him orâMax and I were neighbours.

Cross-examined. I have known Max about four years and the deceased six or seven monthsâI do not know if Max had any bruises on himâhe was on the ground while I was having this conversation with him.

LEWIS MILLER . Up till recently I kept a coffee shop in Back Church LaneâI am now undergoing four months' imprisonment for keeping a gambling house in the City, but I was really convicted for telling the truth of what I have seenâI knew the deceased; I saw him on October 4th in my restaurant at 7 p.m.âhe said, "Where is Max?"âI said, "What do you want him for?"âI saw in his sleeve a thick piece of ironâhe said, "I want to kill him"âhe came in alone, but outside there were about sixty peopleâI said to him, "Max is not here," and said that he had gone to the music hallâthe deceased said to the people outside, "Come along, and we will go along and kill him there"âI knew some of the people outsideâI saw Krovesky there; he had a lemonade bottle in his handâI saw Hyman Colman there; he also had a bottleâCooksey had an iron poker about three-quarters of a yard longâShamos had a bottle and also Tannebaumâwhen the deceased said, "Come along, and we will kill him there," the crowd all ran away with him.

Cross-examined. I said before the magistrate, "I know Tannebaum; I saw him inside my shop about 12 o'clock after the fight," but I made a mistake; there were three persons in my shop and one was similar to TannebaumâI have not since heard that he was at the station from 10 p.m. till 4 a.m.âthe deceased did not use my restaurantâa raid was made on my house on Sunday, November 9th, and I was sentenced to four month's imprisonment by Mr. Mead the following ThursdayâI gave evidence on my own behalf before the Magistrate on November 13thâI did "not know my house was being watched by the police on October 4thâit was after the trial at the police court that I found that I was wrong in thinking that Tannebaum had been at my house.

MAX WEIR . I am at present in prisonâI was sentenced to fourteen days, for aiding and abbetting Miller in keeping a gambling establishment in the East EndâI have been in prison twelve daysâbefore that I was a hairdresserâI have been in England nine yearsâon October 4th, about 6.45 p.m., I was in Commercial Road at the corner of Cannon Street, White-chappel

âI saw thirty or forty people running; some of them had lumps of iron and bottlesâI knew the deceased by sightâhe was the first one who passed meâhe had a lump of iron up his sleeve; the bottom of it was showingâI had not seen the deceased earlier in the dayâI saw Krovesky Tannebaum, Cooksey, the Colmans, Shamos, Haimovitch and Harrison among the people; the crowd was coming down the Commercial RoadâI followed itâthey went to Philpot Street, where about twenty-five more people joined them and then they divided into two parties, one stopped outside the music hall and the other went to the top of Varden StreetâI stopped in the street outside the music hall to see what they were going to doâabout eight people came out of the music hall, Max and Monge were among themâI am not sure if Barnett came out with them, but one of the crowd ran up to him and struck him over the head with a lemonade bottleâBarnett tried to defend himself, and another man ran up to him with a knifeâBarnett tried to get hold of his hand and got his own hand cutâabout twenty men rushed at Maxâone of them kicked him when he was on the ground and the others rushed inâI saw the deceased among them with his bar of iron in his handâa policeman came up and Max ran towards Whitechapel, the other men separatedâI did not see a knife in Max's hand or in Barnett's or Monge'sâwhen I went back to Philpot Street and Varden Street I saw a man named Pelowitzch lying down bleedingâthat was after Max had run awayâI have seen Max boxing at Wonderland.

Cross-examined. I did not keep the door at Miller'sâI only went there to have a cup of tea with himâhe is a countryman of mineâI was not employed by himâthe charge against me was that I was his door man at the gambling club, but that was not trueâwhen I saw the crowd it was three streets away from Miller's shopâI did not see any crowd outside his shop that nightâI have known Max about three years by sightâhe was not a friend of mineâI do not know Monge or BarnettâI have a brother named JosephâI do not know if he is a friend of Barnett's and of Max'sâI said before the Magistrate that Krovesky struck Barnett on the head with a bottleâI saw the deceased with a lump of iron in his hand rush up to Max when he was on the groundâI cannot say if he used it on him, because as soon as Max was touched by a fellow a lot of people surrounded himâI do not remember if I said before the Magistrate that Krovesky kicked MaxâI do not know who kicked him when he was on the groundâColman threw a bottle at him as he lay on the groundâit missed himâthe deceased attacked Max before he was on the groundâI did not see anybody there with a knifeâI will swear that Max had no knifeâI did not see Monge during that timeâI did not see Max after the fight, so cannot say if he received any injuries.

Re-examined. I was not in Backchurch Lane at all; I have no doubt that it was Krovesky who struck Barnett on the head with the bottle.

HARRIS GOLD . I am a shoe maker of 36, Cambridge Villas, Mile EndâI have been in England twelve yearsâon October 4th, about 7.15 p.m., I was at the York Minster Music HallâI paid sixpence admissionâI know the three prisonersâI saw them all in the hallâI was one row behind them

âshortly afterwards someone came in and told Max there was a big mob waiting for him outsideâfive minutes later he went out followed by ten or twelve othersâI followed about ten yards behindâthe passage was clear when I went outâI saw them walk across Walden Street to the corner of Walden Street and Nelson Street, where they were met by a big mob and started fightingâI believe Max got knocked downâthere was a big crowd round himâI did not see any knife in his handâI saw a lot of bottles thrown about, but I cannot say who threw themâthe Bessarabian Society has been in existence about two years, and fights go on every weekâit is a society of liberty takers and blackmailersâa man named Selvitzky is the ringleaderâhe is now in prison.

Cross-examined. I cannot say if the prisoners are members of the Bessarabian Society.

LOUIS LATINSKY . I am a glazierâon October 4th I went to the York Minster Music HallâI saw Max speaking to a policemanâI took my seat and then went out for a drinkâoutside I saw the Bessarabian mobâthere were about sixty or seventy menâthey had their hands in their pocketsâthe Bessarabian Society is a society of blackmailersâI am not a member; I have been one of their victims.

HYMAN CLAINOVITZ . I am a peddlerâon October 4th I was at the York Minster Music Hallâbefore the performance commenced I went out for a drinkâcoming out of the public-house I saw Max coming out from the music hallâpeople then began coming from all sides and throwing bottlesâI saw Max fall, but cannot say whether he was knocked down or fell downâwhen he was on the ground somebody kicked himâI did not see any knife in his handâlater in the evening I saw him going away towards Whitechapel.

ABRAHAM STEINBERG . I am a polisherâI know Hyman and Israel Colmanâon October 4th, about 6 or 6.30 p.m., I went with them to the York Minster Music Hallâthe deceased afterwards joined usâI did not go inside because when I got there I saw a number of people coming outâthese people began at once to attack the people outsideâI ran away, and coming back I saw three men fighting, and one of the three held me saying that I was one of the attacking partyâhe was bleeding from his nose and forehead, and whilst he was holding me I became covered with blood as wellâI had no woundsâI was not called as a witness at the police court.

Cross-examined. I did not know the three men who were fighting.

JOSEPH FLERTY . I am barman at the White Hart public houseâon October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was in the bar, washing glasses and heard a commotion in the middle compartmentâI went to the front and saw two men struggling in the cornerâthe deceased was one of themâhe was lying with his back up against the formâthe other one was standing over him aiming blows at him with his fistâI did not notice whether he struck him or whether the deceased was bleedingâI shouted, "Get outside if you want to fight"âtwo other men entered the bar and joined in the struggleâthen one of the customers who was in the bagatelle room came running into the next compartment and looked over the partition and said, "How many on to one?"âone of the other men replied, "He has been using a knuckle

duster"âsome of the customers then came round and the three men ran out and left the deceased lying on the floorâMr. Bryon then sent me for the policeâI did not notice anyone come in afterwards, pick up something, and go out again.

Evidence in reply.

GEORGE CORNISH (Detective H.) On October 4th I was in Backchurch Lane keeping the premises of Lewis Miller under observation from 6.30 to 7.20 p.m.âI did not see any crowd there.

Cross-examined. I should have seen them if they had been thereâI was in plain clothesâSergeant Wensley saw me there twiceâI did not go into the public house oppositeâI did not give evidence at the police court.

FREDERICK WENSLEY (Re-examined.) I was in Backchurch Lane on the evening of October 4thâI saw Cornish there at 7 o'clock and at 7.15âI saw no crowd there.

Cross-examined. Miller's premises were kept under observation for police purposes.

DR. GRANT (Re-examined.) I saw Max at Arbour Square Police Station on the morning of October 6thâI asked him if he had anything to complain of, and he said "No."

42. JOSEPH CRUDGINGTON, Stealing one kit of fish, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company. Other counts, Stealing other kits of fish.

Mr. J. P. GRAINand Mr. KERSHAWProsecuted; Mr. GREENDefended.

JAMES BRUSEY . I am a fish salesman at Grimsby DockâI had consigned fish to the prisonerâon October 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th I consigned to him daily one kit of fish only at Mint Street Station, to be called for.

Cross-examined. I have consigned fish to the prisoner for twenty years, and have always found him an honourable and straightforward dealer.

HENRY COOPER HOWARD . I am a checker in the employ of the Great Central Railway Company at Grimsbyâon October 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th I received one kit of fish addressed to the prisonerâthese ((Produced) are the consignment notes.

JOHN THOMAS GOODLIFFE . I am a clerk in the employ of the Grest Northern Railway Company at Royal Mint Street DepotâI keep a book showing the consignments of fish and the amount due on each consignmentâupon a person coming and claiming his fish I receive the amount due and obtain his signature for the kit and give orders for a kit pass to issueâon October 6th I found one kit consigned to the prisonerâ4s. 2d. was to be paid for it, which I received from the prisoner, and he made a cross in this book (Produced), and I gave orders for a pass to issueâthat was the only kit

for the prisoner on that dayâon October 8th I find another entry of one kit to the prisonerâ1s. (3d. was the amount paidâthe prisoner has signed the book in that caseâthere was no other consignment of fish to him on those two dates.

Cross-examined. The pass would entitle him to get out of the depot with his fishâthe passes are given up to the policeman at the gateâI believe the policemen keep them for a time, and they are ultimately returned to the officeâif the passes issued by us were not delivered up there would be an enquiry about them.

Re-examined. It is the gatekeeper's duty to demand a pass from everybody going out at the gate.

By theCOURT. If a man had two kits consigned to him and he asked us to make out a pass for one, we should not do it without disputing his wordâwe always look at the waybills to see what amount of fish is due.

FREDERICK WILLIAM KIPPING . I am a clerk in the employ of the GreatâNorthern Railway CompanyâI do similar duties to Goodliffeâon October 7th there was a consignment of one kit of fish to the prisonerâhe paid the amount due, 3s. 11d., and I signed the book for him in his presenceâI then gave orders for a pass to be issued to pass out that one kit.

Cross-examined. The depot is open on Sundays, and fish is given out on Sundays if anyone calls for it.

CORNELIUS KANE . I serve out the passesâon October 6th I received instructions from Goodliffe to issue this pass (Produced) for one kit of fish to the prisoner, and I issued it: "Great Northern Railway Company, Goods Department: pass Crudgington one kit fish"âI did the same again on the 7th and 8th.

Cross-examined. If a man is not provided with a pas? he could get his fish, but he could not get out at the gate.

ARTHUR LAMBERT (Constable G.N.R.) On October 6th I was on duty at the Royal Mint Gate, and at about 8 a.m. the prisoner handed to me this passâthese are my initials on itâhe had a van with one full kit and I think two empties in it.

Cross-examined. There are a good many vans passing through every morningâI could only tell how many kits there were by looking at the passâwe do not give a pass for emptiesâwhen a van passes through the gate it goes up to the bank, where the fish is put on to it.

THOMAS HENRY RIMER . I was on duty at the gate on October 7th and 8thâI took these passes (Produced) from the prisoner on those datesâI initialled themâhe had a van driven by himself, and he took out one kit, and one kit only, on those dates.

Cross-examined. There would be between fifty and sixty vans passing through in the morningâit is my duty to count the number of kits as they go outâI am quite prepared to say that the prisoner's van went co the bank on the morning of the 8th, because it came in empty, and look one kit outâI said at the police court that the prisoner had come in with empties, but not on that morning.

By theCOURT. If a man slipped out one day-without giving up his

pass and handed it to me the next day I should find it out because the date would be wrong.

FREDERICK PLUMM . I am a carman in the employ of the Great Northern Railway CompanyâI have a delivery sheet for each load I take outâthese (Produced) are my three delivery sheets for October 6th, 7th, and 8thâon neither of those sheets is there a kit to be taken for the prisoner anywhereâI know the prisoner's fish shop in Victoria Road, Hackney Wickâthat is on my roundâif necessary I collect any money there may be due for carriageâon October 6th I saw the prisoner in the depot near the bank about 8 a.m.âhe came up to me and said, "Are you going my way?"âI said, "Yes"âHe said, "Would you mind running my kit of fish home for me?"âI said, "Yes, I am going your way and do not mind taking it for you"âI then put the kit on my van and took it to his place in the Victoria Roadâit was addressed to the prisonerâwhen I put it on my van the prisoner went awayâmy van-boy joined me as I went out of the gateâI placed the kit in the road at the back of the prisoner's stall, which is in front of his shopâI did not take any receipt for it, I just put it down and drove offâon October 7th I saw the prisoner again near the bank at the depot at about the same time in the morningâhe came up to me and said, "You might drop that kit for me," pointing to one standing on the bank addressed to himâI said, "I am going that way and I will take it for you"âI took it and delivered it in the same way as I had done the day beforeâon October 8th, about the same time, I saw him again at the bank, and the same thing occurredâI dropped the kit at the same place as I had done on the two previous daysâI have not taken anything for him sinceâI have been doing another round since then.

Cross-examined. I am still in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Companyâthe prisoner gave me the price of a cup of coffee for what I didâI do not suppose I should do it for nothingâif I took it home for him it would not be necessary for him to pay the carriageâI did not think there was any harm in itâhe asked me to take it home early, and I did it as a favourâif he had asked for it to be sent through the depot he would have had to pay the carriage for itâit would not have been good for me if the Company had knownâthe kits I took home had the prisoner's name on the labelsâhe told me he was going to the market and he wanted the fish got home quicklyâI never saw his van, and do not know whether he had any empties on it on those daysâhe always had empties on it whenever I did see itâon each of those mornings when I got to the prisoner's shop he had not arrived.

FREDERICK JOHNSON . I am a van-boy in the employ of the Great Northern Railway CompanyâI went with Plumm on October 6th, 7th, and 8th, and saw him deliver a kit of fish at the prisoner's shop on each of those mornings.

Cross-examined. They were placed outside the prisoner's stall, where anybody could see them.

MR. WARNER (Chief Detective Officer G.N.R.). All fish that comes to the Mint Street Depot is the Company's property until it is delivered to the consigneesâI do not know what time the fish trains arrive in the morning.

WILLIAM-MILLER (City Police Sergeant.) I arrested the prisoner on this charge.

Cross-examined. I have made enquiries with regard to himâI cannot say anything against him.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had asked Plumm if he would take his fish home for him so that he could get to the market, and his man at the shop could get on with the business; that it was perfectly true he received passes on the dates in question, and he gave them up to avoid confusion, and went out at the gate with empties only on his van; that he had never taken out any fish other than that consigned to him; and that when Plumm was not there he had had it sent home by the Company's vans and paid the carriage for it. He received a good character.

AUGUSTUS WOODS . I live at 105, Collingwood StreetâI was present at the birth of Mrs. Brown's baby, which died on September 5thâit was a nice healthy child, a nine-months childâI was there three weeksâI was there one fortnight, and I went there for another fortnight to do the washingâI did not see it again till after it was taken to the Bethnal Green police station in NovemberâI was taken there by the police, and the father wanted me to take it and bring it up because she was about the streets, and it had very little clothing, only a bed-gownâit was very dirty, and it was so at the stationâI did not call every day after the first fortnight, but I saw it in the street twice or three timesâI remonstrated with the mother for not keeping it clean, and she called me a dirty owl and a dirty woman and said that I took her big child homeâthis was in October and in November I saw it at the stationâI was sent for in FebruaryâMrs. Brown came and asked me to come round, as the baby was dyingâI went there and saw it, it was very dirtyâI told her what a state it was in, and she said that she could not wash it, it was so thinâI told her I would come and wash it myself, and I did so for a fortnightâit was not too thin to be washedâI washed it morning and night for a fortnight, and also gave it medicine and milk and made her have a-doctor to the-child Dr. Brown of

Brady Street, who prescribed medicine for it, and I gave it some of it, I cannot say what became of the rest; I gave it because I said to her, "You are not giving the baby the medicine"; she said, "Yes, I am"âwhile I was there the child looked better and cleaner, but it did not get fatterâI attended her in May in a miscarriage, the child was then very dirty and much thinnerâduring those days I fed it from the bottle, and it kept the food downâI did not attend there at all till the day of the child's death on October 15thâit was dead when I went, and I washed the corpseâone part of the buttocks was very black and one part was all woundsâI believe the eldest child, Alice, is eight and another is threeâI have known the man thirty years, he is a respectable, hardworking manâneither of them drank.

Cross-examined by the male prisoner. I have never seen you come home drunk.

By theCOURT. It never occurred to me that the father or mother were wilfully starving the child or I should have informed the authoritiesâI believe the father did everything he could for itâI am not a regular nurse, I go when they cannot afford to have anybody elseâyoung babies are sometimes thin and sometimes they dieâthey sometimes suffer in this way, probably because they cannot digest their foodâthe father slept upstairs in the same room when he was at homeâthere were three children there, not fourâthe baby slept in the kitchenâthe mother was very dirty at times, but not the other childrenâthey could wash themselves, but the little child, not the baby, was always dirtyâDr. Brown is not hereâthey made no difficulty about sending for Dr. Grahamâhe said that the baby was very illâit was ill in February, and it remained ill till October, when it died.

GEORGE LOWDON . I am employed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Childrenâon October 19th at 9 p.m. I went to the prisoners' house with the coroner's officer and saw the dead body of a child on the tableâit had been washed and the room partially cleanedâthe parents pointed out the cradleâI examined it, the only covering was a flannelette overall and a small petticoat, which were wet with urine and covered with filth, and there was a small frock and a pinafore all wet with urineâthe small sheet was partially wetâthe bed was a rough sack filled with straw, which was partially wet and smelt like urineâthere were no bed clothes except the flanneletteâthe man said, "I am the husband of Alice Elizabeth Brown, and have for thirteen months lived with her; I rent a three-roomed cottage at 6s. a week. I work for a baker of 9, Cambridge Road; I have been four years there. My wages are 26s. a week, a loaf of bread a day, and half a quartern of flour. I allow my wife 24s. a week.' We have three children living, Alice aged eleven, Edwin eight, and Alfred three. The child now dead is Florence Rosetta, thirteen months old; three others have died. There have been no inquests before. I cannot remember dates, but I know my wife has been put away four times because of her head. When her first child was born her father got her into Dartford and afterwards in Hoxton House. She was on another occasion in the Infirmary in Bancroft Road, and transferred from there

to Colney Hatch. About November, 1901, she was for a month in Bethnal Green Infirmary, having been found in the street by the police; the baby was with her, it was then about two months old. I let the baby go to the infirmary with her. About a month or so after she came out, on two days before December: about a month or two after I went to the relieving officer, and he told me I had better get Dr. Graham, of Brady Street, to see the child."âthe wife then said: "He came there and saw It three times."âthe man agreed, and said: "It was also taken to the London Hospital."âthe wife said: "It was just after the June Coronation holidays"âthe man agreed, and went on, "I did not see anything specially wrong. The child cried sometimes. I am out from midnight to 2 p.m. The child was insured in the Prudential. After it came out of the infirmary, about the end of February. I told the gentleman I was poor, and asked him to make the amount 2d. instead of 1d., as it would come in handy if the child died. The other children I insured for 1d. The child ate ravenously; my wife told me the other three died from consumptive bowels, and I thought she said that Dr. Graham said this child had the same. I know it had three tins of Nestle's milk a weekâsometimes large tins"âthe man continued: "I do not know if my wife left the child down stairs all night, I thought she took it up stairs. I know it died in a cradle, I generally saw it there. My wife always seemed upset. I have done my best."âon October 23rd he told me: "I am not to blame for this. When I cleaned the cradle out about three weeks ago I advised my wife to take the child to the doctor; I said she would get us into trouble. There were maggots and dirt in the cradle."âon October 15th the female prisoner said: "Dr. Graham told me he thought the child had consumptive bowels. The child usually sleeps alone downstairs because my hushand objects to its wetting the bed upstairs. I got 24s. a week from my husband, one loaf a day, and half a quartern of flour. I pay 6s. a week. At midnight before it died I gave the child some Nestle's milk and left it in the cradle; at 11.30 I went upstairs to bed.; when I came down at 7 a.m. this morning I found the baby was dead. I sent for Mrs. Woods to call in Dr. Bate. The child never had diarrhoea."

By theCOURT. The coroner's officer called on me, and asked me to go thereâit is the coroner's practice to call in aid this society in cases of neglect of children.

JOHN BATE . I am a physician and surgeon of 6, Victoria Park Squareâon October 15th at 10.30 a.m. I was called to see the dead body of this childâthe room was very filthy, it nearly made me sick, and I had to go out of doorsâthe child had been dead over three hours; it was lying on a canvas sack stuffed with straw in a very filthy conditionâthe child was very dirtyâI should say that it had not been washed for a weekâI made a post mortem examination the next day, externally there were no marks of violence, but the buttocks and the private parts were red, swollen, and raw, excoriated by want of cleanlinessâthat is not a common thing to that degree, it is an extreme caseâthe child weighed 7 lbs. 2 1/2 ozs.âin the right lung there was a patch of pneumonia, all the organs were very pale and in an anamic conditionâthat might be inducedâthe whole intestine

was empty, the pneumonia had been running three or four days, and was the immediate cause of deathâthe emaciation was due to starvationâI forgot to say that in the stomach and the small intestines there were half a dozen small pieces of coagulated milkâI should not expect a child in that condition getting pneumonia to recoverâI could find no cause for reducing it to that state.

By theCOURT. I was sent for by Mrs. Woods, about 10 a.m., after the child was deadâI made the post mortem by the Coroner's orderâI found in the stomach some lumps of coagulated milk, which I suppose had been there only an hour or two before death, so rightly or wrongly somebody had been giving the child food two hours before its deathâthat was not the food to give itâno food was found which had been given to the childâI found some Nestle's milkâmilk sometimes coagulates more at one time than at others.

The prisoner Brown's statement before the Magistrate: "I got Mrs. Woods, my sister, to look after the child: my wife takes up the tongs and a knife to me and says, 'Don't you inferfere with my work.' They are all bad women. I am afraid to speak to her. I often have to do the washing myself. My wife used to sit in a melancholy state, with her face down and dirty, and little Alf. used to run about naked. I said, 'Why don't you cheer up?' I have had a terrible life with her. I call no witnesses. I have kept this to myself. Five years ago I worked for Mr. Harris. One day I came home from work, and my wife sold my home and left the child in the street."

Alice Brown's defence. "I tried to do my duty, I could not do no more, it was always ailing and always having doctors."

OLD COURT, Friday, November 28th, and Monday, December 1st, to Saturday, December 6th, 1902, inclusive.

Before Mr. Recorder.

44. EDWARD BEAUCHAMP ROGERS, HENRY NORMAN EVERARD ROGERS, RANSOME WALLIS, ALGERNON WALLIS, SHEPPARD JAMES RANSOME, ARTHUR JAMES RANSOME, JOSEPH JOHN ROLLS SHORT , and RICHARD MARTLAND NEWTON, Conspiring to obtain money and securities from persons and corporations, with intent to defraud, and attempting fraudulently to obtain credit from the same by other frauds. Other counts, for obtaining securities by fraud and false pretences.

MR. KERSHAWsubmitted as regards Newton that the indictment did not comply with sections 1 and 2 of the Vexatious Indictments Act, and cited the cases of Beg. v. the Lord Mayor of London, 16 Cox 77, and Reg. v. Knowlden.MR. MUIRcontended that the Counts were good in law, and cited Reg. v. Brown, tried before Mr. Justice Darling in this CourtTHE RECORDERheld that, though the fiat was probably intended to meet the case of a defendant being added after others had been committed, nothing was shown to limit the fiat of the Attorney-General, and overruled the objection, and a plea of not guilty was entered for Newton.MR. GRAINsubmitted that the first Count was too vague, and should be quashed, first, as no overt act was set out over a period of five years; second, that no persons were specifically set out as having been defrauded; and, third, that it was embarrassing to the defendants.THE COURToverruled the objection.

EDWARD BOARDS KNIGHT . I am one of the firm of Wontner and Sons, solicitors, 19, Ludgate Hill, the solicitors for this prosecution, and who are acting as agents for the Director of Public Prosecutionsâafter the discharge of the prisoners Newton and Short, at the Manison House Police Court, papers were placed before the Attorney-General, who gave us the instructions produced for preferring indictments against them, and the indictment to which that fiat of the Attorney-General refers is the one before the Court.

EDWARD EBENEZER PRICE . I am a chartered accountant, and one of the firm of Viney, Price, and Goodyear, 99, CheapsideâI have known Edward and Norman Rogers about ten yearsâI audited their books from June, 1890âtheir partnership commenced in March, 1898âI saw the partners from time to time, and prepared a balance-sheet of that firm's affairs up to December 31st, 1888, from the firm's booksâit showed assets after all liabilities were accounted for of Â£1,916 16s. 3d.âthat was their capitalâI also prepared this balance-sheet for six months to June 30th, 1889âthat shows Â£1,153 2s. 1d. assets after liabilities had been provided forâthe capital had come down about Â£800âthe next balance-sheet I produce is up to December 31st, 1889âthat shows the partnership assets after liabilities as Â£725 6s. 1d.âthe next balance-sheet prepared by me shows those assets to June 30th, 1890, Â£342 10s. 3d.âin October, 1891, I found the balance to June was Â£42 10s. 3d., and I sent them a letter calling their attention to the itemsâthere was no balance-sheet to December, 1890âI also had a conversation with Mr. Edward Rogers, and consented to make up balance sheets at a reduced fee of 25 guineasâin July, 1892, I wrote reminding them that their balance-sheets were a long way in arrear, and received their instructions to do no more work for them.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. I was not aware that E. Rogers possessed a house at Barnet, and that both possessed other property, nor that they had an interest under their father's will.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger of the Bankruptcy CourtâI produce the files in the separate bankruptcies of Rogers Brothers, of

Edward Rogers, of Norman Rogers, of Wallis, Sons, and Co., of Ransome Wallis, of Algernon Wallis, of S. and E. Ransome and Co., of Sheppard Ransome, of Arthur Ransome, of Joseph John Rolls Short, trading as Thomas and Short, and of Richard Martland Newton.

JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT . I am senior examiner of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, under whose directions I have investigated the affairs of all the defendants in bankruptcyâI was assisted by Mr. Moore, a clerk to Mr. Child, a chartered accountant, Mr. Moore being the trustee of the estates of Rogers Brothers and of S. and E. Ransome and Co.âthis statement of affairs of Rogers Brothers is signed by both the defendants Rogers, and sworn to as correctâI know their writingâthe date of their bankruptcy and adjudication is November 21st, 1901âthe gross liabilities are Â£186,630 18s., their net liabilities Â£73,94015s. 9d., net assets Â£9,293 4s, 10d., showing a deficiency of Â£64,647 10s. lid.âthose are their figures after taking as credit their balance sheet of December 31st, 1899. in accounting for their deficiencyâthe summary of Edward Rogers' separate estate shows gross liabilities Â£21,518 11s. 1d., net liabilities Â£19,329 7s. 2d., assets Â£1,600, deficiency Â£17,632 18s.âin Norman Rogers' separate estate it is gross liabilities Â£17,040 14s. 9d., net Â£14.456 15s. 11d., net assets Â£627 12s. 10d., and deficiency Â£13,829 3s. 1d.âthose are sworn to be correctâthis balance sheet of Mr. Price shows a credit balance of Rogers Brothers of Â£42 in June, 1891âI examined that with a list of creditors and debtors, and from the explanation the Rogers gave me I came to the conclusion that the firm was insolvent in June, 1890âthey admitted some, and the debtors' accounts were their own under other names, and represented losses on speculations in goodsâI took the preliminary examination of the debtors, which is Exhibit 381âamong the debtors to the firm I find A. Hows for Â£667 16s. 10d.; H. Jackson Â£936; T. Thorne, Â£510 9s. 7d.âthe debtors said they held stock against some of the debtors to them, and that the balance partly represented stock in hand; as to others they were losses which they shared equally or in varying proportionsâI have been through the firm's books and prepared a balance sheet (Exhibit 383) to December 31st, 199, which was checked by Mr. Moore and another clerk, and which shows a deficiency of Â£30,844 14s. 10d. as against a surplus balance in Exhibit 3 of Â£31,574 12s. 1d., or a difference of Â£63,000âI showed that balance sheet to the defendants Rogers after I had prepared it in January or Februaryâthey said they had no doubt the books showed those figures, but that the books were wrongâthey challenged the absence of stockâthey pointed out that in Exhibit 3 there was a considerable item for stock, but none in Exhibit 383âthat stock the property of Rogers Brothers was represented by Jackson's debt, and that they estimated that at Â£3,000âsubsequently I found a list of stock, and that was substituted to the value of Â£5.000âI had given them full credit for stockâI found very little trade between Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. of late yearsâthe accommodation bills in 1900-1 averaged Â£18,000 to 20,000 a yearâat the date of the Receiving Order the balance on loan was Â£10,600âI do not know of any trade billsâthere was no trade between Rogers Brothers and Ransome and Co in

1900-1, but there were Â£50.000 to Â£60,000 a year of bills, and there was current at the date of the Receiving Order Â£13,000âthe trade between Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Short in 1900-1 was about Â£11,000âthe exchange cheque account showed about Â£161,000 including accommodation bills in the two yearsâthe trade between Rogers Brothers and Newton between 1897 and 1901 was about Â£16,000 to a considerable extent done by trade bills, but there was in addition about Â£15,000 in accommodation bills from October, 1897, to March, 1901âbetween April, 1899, and September, 1901, there was about Â£50,000 in exchange chequesâboth the Rogers initialed their answers on each page and signed Exhibit 381 at the end as being correctâ(Passages from this Exhibit were then read.)âI also produce a statement of the affairs of Wallis, Sons and Co.âthe Receiving Order is dated October 11th, 1901âall the bankruptcies were within four or five months of each other except that of Ransome WallisâAlgernon Wallis' own statement, he then being a member of Wallis, Sons and Co., shows gross liabilities Â£153,885 9s. 84, net Â£14,977 8s. 2d., and deficiency Â£62,726 4s. 4d.âthe Receiving Order of Ransome Wallis was on March 4th, and the adjudication March 11th, 1902âhis statement shows gross liabilities Â£34,578 3s. 10d., net Â£23,925 3s. 104, net assets Â£307 18s. 44, and-deficiency Â£23,617 5s. 6dâthere was very little trade between Wallis, Sons and Co. and Ransome and Co., and in 1900-1 practically none; but there were accommodation bills to about Â£30,000âat the date of the Receiving Order on October 11th the accommodation bills outstanding amounted to Â£2,792âbetween Wallis, Sons and Co. and Newton during 1900â1 there were a few transactions in bristles in March, 1901âthere were accommodation billsâthere was no trade between Wallis, Sons and Short during those two yearsâthere were accommodation billsâpreliminary examination of Algernon. Wallis is Exhibit 444 in Vol. III. of the Exhibitsâthat was taken by me and signed by him as correctâ(The relevant passages were then read.)âreferring to the statement of S. and E. Ransome and Co., the gross liabilities are given as Â£42,412 13s. 1d., netÂ£33,381 5s. 44, net debts Â£3,133 16s. 7d, and deficiency Â£30,247âI have merely the assets of the separate estate of S. Ransome, which are returned at Â£158âthe statement of Arthur, Ransome shows net liabilities Â£1,000, and assets Â£132 10s.âthe trade between Newton and Short in 1901âI was about Â£2,000âShort's preliminary examination was taken at ManchesterâI produce itâit was signed by him and each page is initialledâon the first page he describes himself as a bristle, horse hair and carpet merchantâ(The relevant passages were then read from Vol. III., p. 614, of the Exhibits.)âone "bill described as a trade bill is that of Atkins, dated June 17th, 1901, for Â£669 9s. 84, drawn by Thomas and Short upon Rogers Brothersâthe others are described as accommodation bills in the statement of affairsâthey were all dishonoured and are in the scheduleâfrom the books I find that the exchange cheques current in September, 1901, between Rogers and Wallis amount to Â£95,025 8s. 84, and between Rogers and Newton to about Â£50,000âthe total exchange cheques between the defendants, including bills, amount to Â£161,866 2s. 1d.â

many of them were on shipments on the bristles accountsâNewton's were on carpets and goods of that characterâthe payees in the books were not genuineâthe cheques were markedâin 1901 there was no trade between Ransome and Short, and I think none between Ransome and Newton, or very little, if anyâthere were accommodation bills between Ransome and Short, and Ransome and NewtonâI received a private ledger from the Ransomes which shows a yearly deficiency, subject to the correction in the examinationâthey treated the debts due to the partners for drawings over profits as good debtsâthe correction turned the surplus into a deficiencyâ(Passages from Exhibit 446 were here read.)âthe Receiving Order against Short, trading as Thomas and Short, was made on November 2nd, 1901âhis statement shows gross liabilities Â£43,795, net Â£26,623, assets Â£1,112, and deficiency Â£25,511âShort's preliminary examination, Exhibit 447, was read to him and signed by him as correctâ(Portions of this Exhibit were also read.)âNewton's Receiving Order is dated November 22ndâhis statement shows gross liabilities Â£28,313 16s. 8d, net Â£24,221 4s. 7d., net assets Â£5,649 9s. 8d., and deficiency Â£18,571 17s. 8d.âas to paper for genuine trade transactions there are the questions and answers in the preliminary examination 'of Rogers Brothers in Exhibit 381 with reference to them (Read.)âthe correspondence with Rogers Brothers is in Exhibit 400 (Read.)âthe letters come from the defendants' possessionâwith regard to loans on warrants I find from Rogers Brothers' books that on February 21st, 1899, they owed the London City and Midland Bank Â£39,585âthese were valued in Rogers' books at Â£36.720. a difference of Â£2,865âaccording to the usual custom there should have been a margin in excess of loanâthat would make the deficiency Â£10,000 to Â£12,000âthe account with the City and Midland Bank was closed in February, 1899âthe preliminary examinations with reference to these loans is in Exhibit 381, Vol. II., page 405, and Exhibit 446, Vol. III. page 589, and the correspondence in Exhibit 398, Vol. II., page 482â(Read.)âthe writing is that of one or other of the defendantsâI have traced the cheques, and the result is shown in Exhibit 443âof the proceeds of the Norwich Union cheque, Â£1,297 1s. 10d. went to Kevorkian and Â£1,044 1s. 5d. to Newton, Â£1,225 10s. 7d. to Thomas and Short, who paid it to Glynn Millsâthere was also an acceptance of Â£251 4s. 9d. of Rogers Brothers drawn by Thomas and Short, and a cheque for Â£286 8s. 4d., which with other sums make a total of Â£2263 8s. 8d. of proceeds which went to Thomas and ShortâÂ£383 16s. 10d. went direct to Newtonâthe total he received from the Norwich Union cheque was Â£1,427 17s. 10d.âRogers Brothers paid off four loans to the London and Westminster Bank amounting to Â£1,007, and there were sundry other payments amounting the Â£2,718 16s.âa small balance remained in their private accountâthe total repayments amounted to Â£3,725 between February 21st and the end of Februaryâthe payments could not have been made without the credit of the Norwich Union chequeâthe defendants, except Newton and short, acknowledge liability to the Yorkshire Insurance Company, either as principals or guarantors of Â£2,000âthat is dealt with in the examination of Ransome Wallace in Exhibit 445, Vol. III., page 563,

and Exhibit 446, Vol. III, page 569â(Read.)âand the correspondence in Exhibit 515, page 682, and Exhibit 519, page 685, which I found amongst Ransome's papersâ(Read.)âthe result of my investigation is in Exhibit 442Aâthe cheque, Exhibit 442, was paid at Martin's Bank to Algernon Walks' account on September 19th, 1901âhis balance was then Â£209 10s. 7d., and on that day there was paid in Â£1,800 2s. 3d., including an amount of Â£1,796 7s. 6d. received from the Yorkshire Insurance Company, and on the 20th there was a further payment in of Â£1,490 10s. 5d.âÂ£568 9s. 5d, Â£285 10s. 7d, and Â£433, and discount Â£35, and Â£237 16s. 8d. are entered to the bills payable account on September 19th, all in respect of liabilities of Wallis Sons and Coâthe total is Â£1,130 19s. 9d., and on September 20th a further sum of Â£250 is enteredâRogers Brothers were paid Â£500; Mills and Sparrow had Â£393 5s. 9d.âthey were creditors of Wallis, Sons and Co.âon September 25th the London and County Bank received Â£650, And Algernon Wallis and S. and E. Ransome Â£181 3s. 9d., and there were sundry paymentsâthese are referred to in Algernon Wallis' examination, Exhibit 477, page 662 Vol. III.â(Read.)âExhibit 458, Vol. III, page 648, is a letter written in three hands on a memorandum form of Wallis, Sons and Co.âit is addressed to Rogers Brothers, and dated August 25th, 1899âthe first part is written by Mr. Moxam, the cashier to Wallis, Sons and Co.âthe next part is Norman Rogers' writing, and the other part the writing of Algernon Wallisâit comes from the possession of Rogers Brothersâ"Dear Sirs,âWill you very kindly let bearer have the three drafts sent for your acceptance yesterday, and much oblige, yours truly, Moxam, Sons And Co.; J.M."âthen written across the memorandum is, "As you have so many unusable in your safe, why do you want these three there?" in Norman's writing; then Algernon writes at the side, "Because, dearest Sirs, we have an appointment with two rank outsiders for Saturday, which may gives us the chance to plant two papers; one is Mr. McCall and another Mr. Salton, and if we miss the chance it will be bad for all of us, do you see?"â(The examinations and correspondence in Exhibits 396 to 491 were then read.)

CHARLES WILLIAM HOLLAND . I am a clerk to Messrs. Wontner and Sons, solicitorsâI made a copy of the letter of September 19th, 1901, Exhibit 491a, from a letter-book of the London and County Bank, and examined it with the managerâ(This stated that the bank would not in future pay against Kevorkian and Co.'s cheques until cleared.)

JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT (Continued.) The commission obtained by the Ransomes on their accommodation bills as disclosed by their books was about Â£600 a year from 1897âthe rate was 4 per cent.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. I adhere to the figures I have givenâthe chief item in the debit balance of Edward Rogers' estate is the Norwich Union loan of Â£12,147âthere was also the Â£2,016 of the Yorkshire Insurance Companyâthe Â£1,000 guarantee in the Palatine Bank was a joint liabilityâthe liability was Â£14,163âthere were Â£1,696 assetsâthe Â£19,000 was reduced to Â£1,696âthe Â£19,000 was his own statementâthe Â£14,446 liabilities of Norman Rogers, Â£12,147 is Norwich Union, and Â£2,016 Yorkshire Insurance, or Â£2,000 in his statement of

affairsâthe total is Â£14,140. and liabilities Â£14,456âapart from his obligations as surety and guarantor, Norman Rogers' private account, stands reduced to about Â£456 liabilities and Â£627 assets, shoeing a small surplus excluding the suretiesâI cannot give the Rogers' drawings because they are not adjusted in the private ledgerâthey exceeded Â£1,200âI heard at the Mansion House that the balance-sheet of December 31st, 1899, was asked for by the manager of the London and Westminster BankâI had a copy of it from Mr. Brett within a month of the adjudicationâI prepared the balance-sheet. Exhibit 38.3, in January because I could not understand the other oneâI was concerned with Rogers Bros.' condition in 1889, because the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 directs investigation of the bankrupt's affairsâit was not done with the express intention of a prosecutionâthe recommendation of these proceedings did not lie with me aloneâthe debtors make out that they are entitled to a credit of Â£31,000 in December, 1899âmy balance-sheet of December, 1899, shows a debt of Â£60,000âthe balance of the alleged loss from over-valuation was Â£55,000âthe amount of loss according to the statement of affairs was Â£85,000âI understand that Â£45,000 is the amount alleged to have been obtained by overvaluations from the London and Westminster Bank, and that the goods realised Â£14,000âcheques were obtained in favour of Rogers Bros, from the London and County Bank of Â£4,244, from Lloyd's Â£7,474, from the London and Westminster Â£1,633 and Â£2,393 in further billsâthe Â£4,786 is WallisâÂ£6,200 was Glyn Mills, and Â£669 Atkinsâthe Palatine Bank Â£1,900, and the Mercantile Bank Â£1,300âthe total is Â£73,000 since December, 1899âÂ£64,000 was deposited by Rogers Brothers to December, 1901âbetween the balance-sheet of December, 1899, and September, 1901, there must have been Â£34,000 deposited to make up the Â£64,000âthe Â£12,000 from the Norwich Union and the Â£2,000 from the Yorkshire Insurance Company appear in all the accounts whether separate or jointâif one of them paid them off those debts would disappear, subject to the right of contribution, but to multiply the accounts, by the eight defendants is an exaggerated viewâthere were a good many cheque transactions between Rogers and Newton; all of them were met, also the bills with Thomas, and Shortâthose cheques and bills amount to about Â£60,000âRogers accounts with the City and Midland Bank have been closedâI understood so from Edward RogersâRogers Brothers adopted the names of Howes, John Dent, and F. A. WentâI have not the Official Receiver's Report, but I have no doubt Rogers Brothers did make profits and brokerage, and that they did a large legitimate trade.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. If it had not been for the Norwich Union Loan, certain bills of Wallis, Sons, and Co., amounting to Â£1,096 3s. 7d. could not have been metâI find Â£1,580 paid into their banking account from Rogers Brothers, and that is the only way I have of tracing the sumâI find a bill of three months drawn by Wallis on November 18th, and accepted by Rogersâif it were for Wallis' accommodation he could discount that bill and provide funds to meet bills due at that dateâI cannot agree that Wallis's books show that the bills for Â£300, Â£496, and Â£300 were provided for by Wallis irrespective of the Norwich Union sum

of Â£10,580âthe books of Rogers Brothers, of which this document is only an extract, show that the first bill of Â£300 was accepted by them and finally was for their benefitâthe discount was Â£3 17s. 3d.âthe other two were apparently for the benefit of Wallisâthe cash book at folio 39 shows cheques of Â£600 and Â£194 10s., on February 23rd, of Wallis, and discount Â£1 13s. 1d.âI cannot say that that was for those two bills, there was a batch of other bills discounted at the same t-me which were due the day before those twoâI find bills receivable on February 24th at three months, for Â£476 3s. 1d., Â£796 3s. 1d., and Â£794 10s., with a deduction of Â£1 13s. 1d. and cheques entered in the ledger, but I do not know that they were provided for these billsâthe figures appear to be so if you are right in your deduction from the sumsâthe books of Wallis, Sons, and Co. contain all these accommodation transactions, but I cannot say clearlyâI can discover no appearance of disguising or concealing themâof the Yorkshire loan Â£1,796 was paid into Algernon Wallis's bankâthe cheque is entered in the ledgerâBowden had two or three shops and traded with billsâan old debt is standing of hisâhe left London in 1900âWallis's father was in the firm till he died in 1900âthe firm did considerable business, they imported largely from abroadâthey used to accept against delivery orders, from the bankers who held the shipping documentsâthey sold produce in the provision and allied trades and paid partly by acceptancesâthere was a great deal of paper on both sidesâthey lost seriously in 1894 in consequence of forward shipments in cheeseâtheir turnover was between Â£200,000 and Â£300,000 a yearâtheir best years were in 1896-7âfrom June to November, 1896, it was Â£158,000âRansome Wallis was well backed by the banks, and by Mr. John Cobb, his father-in-law, and by John McCall in 1894âbetween Â£5,000 and Â£6,000 was put in the business, Roberts, Appley, Wilson, and Beaumont backed themâAlgernon was seriously ill during part of the timeâin 1889 Mr. McCall put Â£3,000 into the business upon which he paid interestâthat was a gift to his daughter, Mrs. Ransome WallisâÂ£5,000 more put into the business is included in the liabilities, but does not rankâthose amounts were releasedâupon the execution of the deed of dissolution of partnership Mrs. Wallis's trustees paid in Â£6,000, and a covenant was entered into by Ransome Wallis to pay Â£6,000 more within six monthsâthe amount paid in was about Â£14,000âall the bills except four were met before the bankruptcyâthe bills of Newton and the Palatine and Mercantile Banks were not metâanother bill was drawn as from June 1stâI am not sure that one bill is not dated May 31stâthe others are between June 1st and 18thâboth Wallises say they had delivery orders on Newton for bristles in respect of themâRansome Wallis got an indemnity from Algernon on condition of his paying Â£6,000âthere were small sums due in the marriage settlement of Ransome Wallis that account for his deficiencyâthe Norwich Union by payment of premiums is a diminishing debtâI think Wallis, Sons, and Co. were well acquainted with Short, and that they had dealings with Newtonâthis is the first I have heard of delivery orders held as security for advances, being kept back by Rogersâthe lease of the farm and factory at Tadworth was valued at Â£15,000, and in the compensation under the Market Gardens Act the total was, I think,

not Â£30,000 but Â£21,000âthe security of Rogers Brothers was held for Wallis amongst others for what it was worth.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. Wallis, Sons and Co.'s books were well kept by Algernon up to the time of the bankruptcyâhe was extremely frank in speaking of these mattersâduring the four and a half years his private drawings were between Â£300 and Â£(500, including a payment on his policy of about Â£100 a year.

JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT (Re-examined byMR. GRAIN.) Mr. Moore is the trustee of Mr. Child, the trustee for the Ransomes, who had been in business fifty years before their failure in 1901âI believe Mr. Moore hasâaccess to all the papersâthe business was founded in 1832 by the father of Sheppard, and Arthur Ransomeâthey banked at the London and Westminster Bank for a larger portion of that time at the head office at Westminster, and for a short period at the Temple Bar Branchâthe whole of their acceptances were accepted at their bankâthe whole of the bills embodied in this enquiry were accepted at the head officeâArthur Ransome's assets at the time of the failure amounted to Â£644 12s. 8d.âthat was handed over to the trusteeâhis book debts were estimated at Â£1,632âI "would rather you ask Mr. Moore what was realised, and detailsâleaving out unsecured creditors the liabilities of the firm upon bills, etc., included Â£12,000 to the Norwich Union and Â£2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Companyâthe total is Â£33,381âArthur's portion was Â£13,808âfrom an examination of the firm's pass book and bankruptcy accounts since 1897 I find there was always a credit sufficient to meet chequesâI find none dishonouredâthe books of the firm were well keptâI find no entry of their having received money in respect of their certificates of values of warrantsâexcept as to Â£2,700 or Â£2,800 their bills had all run off before the failureâtheir deficiencies were in 1893. Â£693; 1894, Â£826; 1895, Â£1,671; and in 1896, Â£970 apparently, but no balance sheet was taken out for three yearsâin 1898 the deficiency was Â£1,736, in 1899 Â£539, in 1900 Â£1,709, and in 1901 Â£418, without taking account of sundry liabilitiesâthey had assumed that certain overdrafts of the partners were available and proper assetsâI do not find that they were borrowers upon warrants deposited as securitiesâSheppard Ransome's drawings were, in March, 1898â9, Â£302; March, 1899-1905, Â£375; March, 1900â1, Â£373; and from March, 1901, to the date of the Receiving Order, Â£458; the drawings of Arthur Ransome's were respectively Â£634, Â£1,033, Â£827 and Â£493âin the examination both Ransomes were present when I put the formal questions, and asked questions which occurred to me of each; I found no hesitation or reticence in their answers, which they signedâI agree with Mr. Grey's answer to you at the Mansion House that both the Ransomes gave me every assistanceâthey handed me these nine answers to trade inquiries of London trading associations as to Rogers Brothers, Wallis, Sons and Co., and othersâ(These were dated from January, 1894, to May, 1891, and were favourable references.)âwith regard to the Scottish Union, Ransome's books show that out of a cheque for Â£2,051 0s. 10d., apparently payable to Kevorkian, they received Â£1,297 1s. 10d.âthat went to meet bills of Rogers Brothersâcover was given by Rogers for

bills for a year or two, I think, but the cover was not always sufficientâthere was full cover for a short time and then it gradually fell offâthere was some small cover at the date of the Receiving Orderâit was a very small amount; the trustee can speak as to the valueâthe correspondence shows that Rogers Brothers were asked for cover and did not give itâit was admitted in the examination that the cover ceased latterly altogetherâat the time warrants or receiving orders were held by the Ransomes, deposited by Rogers Brothers some time previouslyâthey realised a small sumâafter March, 1900, the Ransomes never drew or discounted any bill.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. There are adjustments in the accounts between Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. and ShortâI do not suggest that any commission was received by Short in these transactionsâin 1900 the Shorts' turnover was approximately Â£28,000âI find no proof nor any correspondence between Short and CobbâWallis and Co. and Short were personally acquaintedâthere is no correspondence between them in 1900 and 1901 to my knowledgeâShort told me that the only way he dealt with Wallis and Co. with regard to bills was through Rogers Brothers, who told him they were trade transactionsâthe same answer applies to the RansomesâShort said that he received assistance from Rogers in bills, and that he gave bills in exchangeâthere was accommodationâShort said that he advanced enormously on hops in 1896âI believe it was 75 per cent.âthere was a heavy fall in the marketâhe held over hops for a better market, but I cannot tell you whether it was for two seasonsâI have no doubt he sold at a Jossâthe American consignors, the hop growers, were indebted to him about Â£3,300âafter the fall in the market he wrote to Rogers Brothers for assistance to tide over the difficultyâanother factor was that the firm who had financed him previously did not go on financing himâthat was early in 1897âup to that time his business had been going on fairly wellâhis income in 189G was larger than in 1897âhe employed Down and Co. to recover his debtsâthey are mercantile agents of New Street, Cheapsideâhe told me that they had offices in the United States, Canada, and Australasiaâhe said that in 1899 he visited America with the object of enlarging his business credit and to reduce the loss, and again in the summer of 1900, at the instance of Rogers Brothers, to increase his business and to collect debtsâI do not agree that in 1900 he was looking to realising these debtsâI do not remember his telling me that on August 15th. 1901, he had a letter from Down and Co. advising him to consider the American debts as bad debtsâhe said he got the value of the warrants from Rogers BrothersâI should say it was extraordinary for him to rely upon their certificatesâhe had freehold property at Weymouth, subject to a mortgageâthere was a surplusâhe valued some furniture at Â£35âwhen he filed his petition a number of his bills had not maturedâhe had called a meeting of his creditorsâhe filed his petition on their recommendationâthis is the-first I have heard of his drafting a statement with regard to Rogers Brothers' loansâhe handed me a pocket book which is hereâbefore his bankruptcy several creditors had issued writs against himâtwo of them are hereâone is by the London and County Bank and one is by Mr. Juddâhis books were fairly kept by himself and othersâhe has

given some informationâhe has reserved the truthâhe handed me books and papersâhe has been in business forty-three yearsânothing has been found against him apart from these proceedings.

Cross-examined byMR. KERSHAW. I knew that Newton had carried on business as a bristle and horse hair merchant since 1868, and I believe previously as a brush maker at Stockport either by himself or with his mother, that the business was founded by his father, who died about 1855, and was carried on till the time of the bankruptcy proceedingsâhis trade with Rogers Brothers was about Â£16,000 since 1897, and their bills, amounted to about Â£15,000âhe had doubled his business before 1897 by dealings with Rogers Brothers, which began in 1888-9âhis gross liabilities, Â£28,000, and net liabilities, Â£24,000, include the Norwich Union Â£12,000 and the bills then dueâthe accommodation cheques between Rogers. Brothers and Newton amounted to Â£50,000âsome had been met at the date of the Receiving Orderâhe called a meeting of his creditors and signed his petition on November 23rdâthe cheques for Â£2,610 between them were an exchange transactionâall the transactions referred to here were posted in the books.

Cross-examined bySIR J. LEESE. On February 10th, 1901, there was a credit balance of Rogers Bros., at the London and Westminster Bank, of Â£2,093âcheques were paid in which brought it up to Â£3,124 seven days before the Â£10,000 was paid inâthe exchange transactions amounted to Â£2,051 0s. 10d.âKevorkian paid Â£1,297 1s. 10d. to RansomesâI have never seen Kevorkian's name in connection with any trade transactions in Ransome's booksâthere is a payment to Kevorkian of Â£2,151âof the Â£3,339, Ransomes received Â£1,297âthere were trading transactions between Kevorkian and Rogers Bros.âRogers Bros.' turnover with the London and Westminster Bank was very largeâat the date of the loan there was Â£600 or Â£700 to their credit at Lloyds Bankâthere was a private account open for the purpose of meeting their obligations to the Norwich UnionâI believe it was opened with Â£100 from E. Rogers' private accountâit reached Â£1,000âtrial balance sheets were taken outâthis one is my writingâthere is no credit for stockâit would have been possible to have ascertained their position if the figures had been correct.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. Wallis, Sons and Co.'s account with Martin's Bank was very largeâpossibly there was Â£25,000 in three months' bills before 1899, or Â£100,000 a yearâit is very difficult to distinguish the billsâthere were transactions in cheese and butter.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. There were large advances to Wallis, Sons and Co. on warrantsâI do not know that the warrants realised more than the advancesâI heard from Algernon, that cheques marked by Martin's Bank were marked by Mr. Bueggâthat would make the cheque as good as a bank note practically.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. Martin's Bank discounted Â£15,366 of Ransome's acceptancesâat the time of the failure about Â£620 was outstanding.

Re-examined. One reason for my making out a balance sheet of Rogers Bros. was that they put the credit balance at Â£33,000âI asked for papers to

show that, which were not producedâthat was the object of the investigation in bankruptcy, and not with a view to a prosecutionâthe firm's liabilities and those of their separate estates were not repeatedâthe total credit, starting with the balance on February 20th, and including all sums paid in between that date and February 27th, was Â£15,218âthat included Â£10,000 from the Norwich Union, but not the Â£500âthe bills outstanding could not have been met but for the Â£10,000âthose were allocated and paid out of the London and Westminster firm's accountâI traced the allocation in Wallis and Sons, and Rogers Brothers' booksâin Wallis and Sons' books it appears by red ink figuresâthey are arbitrary figuresâabout the same time there was a fresh batch of billsâfrom 1894 to 1896 Wallis and Sons lost Â£14,000âtheir turnover was largeâif there was a profit the larger the turnover the larger the profit, if a loss the larger the lossâI ascertained from Algernon that the warrants for the bristles were produced the same day as the letter from the London and Westminster Bank was written, to satisfy the Bank that Newton's bills were securedâI asked the defendants about the transaction with Hodson, and they all know of Hodson's letter of April 30th, 1901, which discusses what is to be done with regard to his liabilitiesâmany bills of Ransomes' with the London and Westminster Bank, run off before September, 1901âthat Bank declined to discount any more of them after March, 1900âRansomes received the proceeds of the bills afterwards, to the extent of about Â£1,000; the actual figures are in the statementâRansomes' capital decreased during the last three yearsâduring that period they received Â£500 to Â£600 commission on billsâtheir gross income from all sources was Â£2,200 and net Â£800, apart from commissionsâthese trade reports refer to "Rogers Brothers andâothers"âI did not know of three Rogers carrying on business together, only the twoâboth Edward and Norman told me they were the only partnersâwith regard to Wallis, Sons and Co., the trade reports extend from 1894 to 1901âthe Wallises are cousins of the Ransomesâthe cover by warrants of Ransomes from Rogers Brothers ceased within twelve months of the bankruptcy; they could not get any warrants for twelve months, and as they say in their examination, they ceased to apply for themâ(The correspondence between Newton, and Rogers Brothers in Exhibits 406 to 418 was then read.)

HAROLD JOHN MOORE I am a chartered accountant and clerk to Mr. Child, the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendants Rogers Brothers, and with regard to their separate estates; also of the firm of S. and E. Ransome and their separate estatesâI have examined the books with the witness Mr. Broughton KnightâI was present at the preliminary examination of the bankruptsâI assisted Mr. Knight in preparing the balance sheet, Exhibit 383, which shows the state of Rogers Brothers' affairs to December 31st, 1899âit is correct according to their booksâthe defendants Rogers. Brothers have had copies supplied to them and have criticised the figuresâthey accepted the amounts as correct, but said the books were incorrectâthe separate estates have been realised, but the joint estate has notâthe joint estate up to the present time realised Â£1,115, and there are a few warrants which may realise another Â£2,000â

the separate estate of E. Rogers realised Â£1,769, and that of N. Rogers Â£682âthe whole assets total Â£5,560âthe liabilities proved are Â£79,936, and there is a further Â£35,000 outstanding, making an approximate total of Â£115,000 for the joint estateâthe separate estates include debts to the Norwich Union and the Yorkshire Insurance Co. of Â£14,000âthe total against E. Rogers is Â£23,800, and against N. Rogers Â£15,600âthe total liabilities are Â£139,000 as against Â£5,560 assetsâRansome and Co.'s assets are Â£1,868 and a possible Â£500 to come; S. Ransome's assets Â£197, and Ransome's assets Â£174, the three estates totalling Â£2,739 of assetsâthe liabilities of Ransome's firm are Â£25,339, and a further Â£3,000 outstanding, which makes an approximate total of Â£28,500 against the joint estateâon the separate estates the Â£14,000 comes in twiceâeliminating that I make the proofs Â£14,000 against the separate estate of S. Ransome, and against Ransome Â£15,119âthat makes the joint and separate liabilities of the Ransomes Â£43,000 odd against total assets of Â£2,739âI heard a portion of Mr. Knight's evidence coming in and out of Court, and agree with it.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. The Rogers' attitude was this, "We do not doubt the balance sheet is correct, but the books themselves are not accurate"âthere was Â£4,000 guarantee to the Norwich Unionâthe loan was Â£10,580âthe books show considerable trading between Rogers and KevorkianâE. Rogers' statement shows that he is debited with Â£12,147 to the Norwich Union and Â£2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Co.âthe figures are duplicated in the statement of affairsâthe Pallatine Bank Â£1,000 is not scheduledâin the statement of affairs the money receipts are not accurateâhis account is charged with Â£5,000 to the Commercial Unionâthat is Â£19,000 excluding the Pallatineâhis own statement is Â£31,000, net, Â£19,300âthe claim against Kevorkian is scheduled as Â£6,800âthat may rank as assets if the claim is good.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. I have read the books and papers relating to Ransome and Co.âtheir books were well keptâI found Â£20,000 liabilities on sixty-six bills, of which Â£15,808 is expected to rankâthere is also a liability of Â£12,000 to the Norwich Union and Â£2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Co.âwe shall realise the whole of the doubtful Â£500 assets or noneâall S. Ransome's assets have been realisedâhis statement was substantially correctâthe same answers apply to A. Ransomeâboth Ransomes attended for their examination when required, and answered the questions put by me.

Re-examined. The Kevorkian cheque is purely an exchange cheque transactionâthe trustee is investigating the account in reference to Rogers Brothers' claim against Kevorkian, and Kevorkian's claim of Â£3,000 against Rogers Brothers.

ARTHUR FREDERICK ATKINS . I am an insurance broker and bill discounter, of Imperial Buildings, LeicesterâI have discounted for the defendant Short, acceptances of Rogers Brothers, and Hodson, drawn by"Thomas and Short"â(The correspondence with regard to these acceptances was read from Exhibit 10, dated January 19th, to 'Exhibit 20, dated June 22nd, 1901.)âwhen I discounted those bills I believed they were genuine trade bills representing goods sold, drawn by the acceptors on Thomas

and Short, and that Rogers Brothers always met bills at maturity without assistance.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. I have never had any direct transactions with Rogers Brothers.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I do not remember seeing any "account sales"âthese produced are partly printed with blank spaces for names and particularsâthe words "public sale" and "ex" are printedâI did not pay particular attention to thatâI took this to be an account of transactions between the two parties to the billâI did not trouble about the technicalities on the topâthe words "Lot money" is in writingâand one per cent." for brokerageâI advertise for bills to be discountedâI did not apply to Short, he applied to meâI may have written him occasionallyâI was introduced to himâhe complained of my high chargesâhe gave me referencesâI made inquiries about the acceptors in addition to and independent of the consideration on the billsâI took the bills partly on the references, and partly on the statements as to the transactionsâthere were six billsâthey were all paid except the lastâinquiries about the last made me suspiciousâsubsequently to the last bill maturing I issued proceedingsâI have been a bill discounter for twenty yearsâI have never prosecuted, nor threatened to prosecuteâyes, I did prosecute one person for forgery at Northampton many years agoâI always understood that prosecution does not destroy the civil remedyâI issued a writ after seeing ShortâI got judgmentâthat was stayed under the bankruptcy proceedingsâI instructed solicitorsâI put pressure on Short to get paid.

Re-examined. I would not have discounted the last bill if I had known that it was an accommodation bill.

EGERTON SPENCER GREY . I am Official Receiver in BankruptcyâI have investigated the books and documents of Thomas and Short, and of Rogers Brothers, with reference to Atkins' billsâlooking at the bill book, I find a bill for Â£611 12s. 6d. discounted with Atkins on January 22nd, 1901âit is referred to in exhibits 10 and 11âthe books show that it is an accommodation bill, and it remains till this day in the booksâI found Exhibit 564 [A memorandum showing the proceeds of the bill and a balance to Rogers Brothers of Â£207 14s. 4d.] amongst Rogers Brothers' papersâit refers to Â£669 9s. 8d. received by Thomas and Short from Atkinsâthe net proceeds of the bill are Â£645 6s. 6d.âthe original paper is headed "Exchange Account, 22nd June, 1901"â[MR. KNIGHT: The writing is Howard Short's]âit is the writing of Short's sonâit is addressed to Rogers Brothers, is initialled "T. and S." and shows that Thomas and Short account to Rogers Brothers for the proceeds of the billâRogers Brothers get the benefit of itâif it had been a genuine trade transaction, the drawer should have had the benefitâthis is the cheque for the balance, "Pay Delhi (London) Bank or bearer Â£207 14s. 4d.," that is signed Thomas and Short, and is dated June 25thâit is Short's writingâ[MR. KNIGHT: The cheque is Howard Short's writing, the signature is Short's writing]âExhibit 564a is the pass book of Rogers' account at the Delhi Bank, which shows the receipt of that sumâit is credited at the bank the

same dayâin the exchange cheque account of Thomas and Short it is entered as an accommodation transactionâthe entry in Rogers Bros.' books shows by deduction that it is accommodationâother entries treat it as the proceeds of the sale of goodsâit is entered after October 3rd, but bears date July 8thâfirst at page 631 is a credit, Thomas and Short's account, Â£669 9s. 8d., June 22nd, by acceptance Atkins Â£669 9s. 8d., and then June 17th, folio 624, same account, by cheque Â£669 9s. 8d. crediting Thomas and Shortâin Thomas and Short's books it is carried to goods accountâthere are four or five of those transactionsâthe first entry is McCall, exchange cheque account, which is the account through which accommodation bills exchange cheques were passed, he credits the account with the net proceeds of the bill, and debits it with payments to both of the Rogersâit is set out in the exchange account at folio 388, in the green or sold ledgerâthe dates run June 22nd, then June 21st, it is balanced on June 30th, then the account goes to July 20th, and on July 31st the account is credited "Discount in error Â£645 6s. 6d."âthat is interlineated in small figures as there is no room for itâit has not been written in since the total Â£9,802 1s. 5d., which is cast correctlyâthe next is a journal entry at page 73, carried through to the exchange goods account, and there is the double transfer of the net proceeds, and the discount charges, making up the gross amount of the bill, and debiting Rogers Brothers in the goods account under an entry of July 31st of 11s. in the name of Myer from the sold ledger after August 30th, therefore the transfer to Rogers Brothers' account must also have been made after that dateâthere invariably is a space at the end of the month in the journalâit also shows that the next entry on the same date was made after October 8th, 1901, although it appears at the date of July 31st; I find that by reference to the sold ledger of October 8thâtherefore, assuming all the entries of July 31st were made at the same time they were made after October 8th, when this book transfer to Rogers was made, and certainly after August 30thâthe practical stoppage of payment was on September 26thâI can refer to other entries if necessaryâI traced the principal items to Thomas and Short's stock book on June 30thâI found a press copy of Exhibit 18 gummed in the press copy account sales book of Rogers Brothersâit is not indexed, but the sheets before and after it are indexedâit is indistinct and blurred, and written in to make it clear by indelible pencil, in Howard Short's writingâthe tissue paper has been folded up in folds to put into an envelopeâ[This was a memorandum as to a four months' acceptance, dated" 20/10/01" for Â£076 7s. 2d.]âI cannot explain the items Â£615s. 2d. Â£1 17s. 6d. brokerage, and 2s. 4d., and lot money at 9d. a lotâit is in the invoice book as an invoice of goodsâthe number on the sheet has been torn off one sheetâthe invoice purports to be a sale to H. Jacksonâa loose sheet has been torn out of another bookâthe brokerage and allotment is charged in both firms' booksâthe sale purports to have taken place on June 17th of dog-skin robes, which formed the chief item of goods pledged with Frith, Sands and Co. on June 13th for a loan which has never been repaidâthe goods were sold by Frith, Sands to recover their mortgageâ

the record of that sale is in Rogers Brothers' ledger, at folio 624, after an entry October 3rd.

Cross-examined byMR. ELLIOTT. There were goods answering the description in the account salesâI have traced them all, except the last small itemâthere were eighteen cases of Calcutta bristlesâon June 15th two bills drawn by Rogers Brothers on Thomas and Short were runningâthe first is dated April 29th, 1901, which was due and payable on August 1st, 1901, for Â£422 13s. 7d.âthat was discounted by the London and Westminster Bankâthe second bill is dated May 1st, was due November 4th, for Â£547 3s. 4d., and was Exhibit 126, left in Richardson's hands as security for their acceptancesâin Mincing Lane some firms improperly act both as merchants and brokersâthe horsehair was purchased by Thomas and Short in the ordinary way of businessâI do not suggest that that was an improper transactionâthe same answer applies to the bristlesâto obtain an advance, the ordinary course is to deposit warrants with a merchant banker to the value of the goods, or to substitute others to release themâthe goods can be sold subject to the lienâthe goods changing hands would not make it an accommodation transaction between the merchant and the broker.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. Short delivered up his books and papers, and answered the questions in his examinationâhe read from this pocket book, and I asked him to hand it to meâit refers to bristlesâI am satisfied that the eighteen cases of Calcutta bristles existed at the time they were pledged to the London and Westminster Bankâthere were various pledgings of those bristlesâI put 8,000 or 9,000 questions to the defendants, and cannot remember particular onesâwhat was present to my mind was that these goods which had never been delivered, had been sold by the mortgageeâit is for the purchaser to take delivery, but goods are sold over and over again by brokers without being deliveredâShort was dealing with Rogers Brothersâthe purchaser would be liable for the wharf charges while he owned the goods or the warrantsâthe wharfinger looks for his charges to the person who deposits the goods, because he knows nobody elseâShort did not clear the goodsâthey remained with Frith, Sands and Co. till they sold them after the bankruptcyâthe contract between Frith, Sands and Short was valid on June 17thâthere was a loss on the goodsâthey were sold to the mortgageeâI have produced the note showing the amounts were handed to Rogers Brothersâthe account rendered to Rogers Brothers was headed "Exchange account," and the transaction was carried through the Exchange cheque accountâthat is accommodationâthere would be adjustments between the firmsâthe exchange cheques run all through the accountsâthe books give no details, but merely say "To cheque," then "cheque," and then there is a long string of itemsâthe Â£2,000 is entered on the credit side at the date of January 21st, 1901, "By account A. L. and Co."âthat shows that on January 21st Short received from Arbuthnot, Latham and Co. Â£2,000 on loanâon the face of them, none of the entries appear to be of exchange chequesâyou never find items corresponding in amountâwithout a knowledge of the accounts you could not say this was an accommodation

account, except from its headingâconsiderable financial transactions appear between Rogers Brothers and Short as distinguished from tradeâthere is no objection to Short handing over sums, the result of discounted bills of Atkins and others, in payment of accounts between him and Rogers Brothers, but that is directly contradicted both by Short's and by Rogers Brothers' booksâif the sale of June 17th was bona fide, the proceeds would have been applied to the release of the goodsâShort failed on September 26thâhe may have made payments as late as October 11th, but once Rogers Brothers stopped, Short's account stoppedâthe dog-skin robes were, when first purchased, the subject-matter of dispute between Short and Rogers Brothers as to the amount of cover.

FREDERICK HAMILTON SMITH . I am manager of the Mercantile Bank of Manchester, at Manchesterâthe Defendant Newton called upon me about October 11th, 1899, to open an accountâI had known him previously by reputation as a bristle, horsehair, and carpet merchantâhe required an ordinary current account and facilities for discounting billsâI asked him, and he told me that his capital was about Â£3,000âhe gave me a list of firms whose acceptances the bank was to discountâI have been unable to find itâthere was a large number of names in his own trade, and I inferred those were the names of persons whose bills would come into our handsâI agreed to open the accountâbetween October, 1899, and April, 1900, we discounted acceptances of Rogers Brothers to the extent of Â£2,186, of Thomas and Short from November, 1899, to August, 1901, Â£2,500; of S. and E. Ransome between May, 1900, and February, 1901, Â£1.500; of Wallis, Sons and Co., between February and July, 1901, Â£1,274; and there were othersâExhibits 27 and 28 are two bills, of which Newton is the drawer, and Wallis, Sons and Co. the acceptorsâone is for Â£282 11s. 1d. of May, 1901, and one Â£2,822 of June, 1901âthe majority of them were for odd amountsâI inferred from that, that they were trade billsâif I had had any intimation that they were accommodation bills, I would not have discounted themâabout July, 1900, it came to my knowledge that there were cross-drawings between Rogers Brothers and Newtonâon July. 9th I asked Newton to explain thatâhe said that Rogers Brothers sometimes bought and sometimes sold for himâhe produced invoices which bore out what he saidâI told him I was satisfied as far as his transactions were concerned that the business was bona fide, but as he was doing that class of business, I could not discount the paper of Rogers Brothers or any other firm's where there were cross transactions, that one amount should be taken from the other, and the bill drawn for the differenceâI discounted no more bills of Rogers Brothersâon January 30th, 1901, I had inquiries whether Newton was a good surety for a Â£12,000 loanâI saw Newton about itâhe said it would be to his advantage in business to become one of the guarantorsâI told him that my view was that in many cases the guarantors had to pay the money, and that so long as he had this liability over him I should refuse to give him any credit without full securityâhe said he did not apprehend the seriousness of the position, and thought that he would only have his proportion of that guarantee to pay; and that the

liability would be distributed over the guarantorsâon February 1st he showed me a telegram from Rogers Brothers withdrawing him from the guaranteeâI understood that he had written to themâI did not take the telegram in my hand, but I fully believed himâhe said that matter had ceased so far as he was concernedâI continued to give him discount facilitiesâI believed he was a man of his wordâhad he not given me this assurance I should have adhered to my refusalâat the time of his failure the five bills scheduled in Exhibit 26 amounting to Â£1,331 15s. 6d. were in my hands under discountâthe acceptor's names are Thomas and Short, Wallis, Sons and Co., and the Welch Grape Juice Companyâall his subsequent bills were dishonoured.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. When I discovered the cross drawings I ceased to discount Rogers Brothers' billsâour bank has lost nothing through Rogers Brothers' acceptancesâwe have lost on the firm's account, still I think we have security.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I had no direct communication with Thomas and Shortâthe results of our agent's inquiries was satisfactory.

Cross-examined byMR. KERSHAW. I have known Newton quite twentyfive yearsâhe had banked with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bankâhis dealings were satisfactory, all of them were what I considered business transactionsâI knew him as a bristle and horsehair merchant in ManchesterâI casually said to him when he came in 1899 about the account that the bills,"I suppose they are something like the bills we used formerly to discount?"

WILLIAM LLOYD POPPLE . I am manager of the Palatine Bank of Manchesterâon June 21st, 1900, Newton called to open an account or facilities for discountingâhe gave me the list of customers on Exhibit 22, which includes the names and extent of discounts of Rogers Brothers, Â£1,500; Ransome, Â£750; Thomas and Short, Â£750; Camm and Co., Â£500âI did not then know that Camm and Co. was connected with NewtonâI drew Newton's attention to the fact that some of the names were not in the same trade as himselfâI mentioned Ransome, and Wallis, Sons and Co. particularly afterwards, as we discounted bills on Wallisâhe said that these bills came from Rogers Brothers, who guaranteed them, that they were continually doing business with him, and that the bills were to satisfy their indebtedness to himâRogers Brothers were produce brokersâtwo or three weeks later he said that Rogers Brothers would guarantee a proportion of bills up to Â£1,000âI asked him what inducement they had to do soâhe said, "Oh, they always have goods to greater value of mine than the amount of the guarantee, and I make up my mind to assist them in order that I may do more with themâI discounted Rogers' Brothers bills, and afterwards those of Wallis, Sons and Co.âbetween, August, 1900, and July, 1901. I discounted acceptances of Wallis, Sons and Co. amounting in round figures to Â£2,300, of S. and E. Ransome Â£2,000, of Thomas and Short between August, 1900, and May, 1901, Â£1,500, and of Camm and Co., between June, 1900, and September, 1901, Â£1,900âin June, 1901, I noticed that the number of bills was high and increasing and spoke to him about itâhe said his position was good, his capital was Â£7,000, of which Â£3,000 or

Â£4,000 was in J. Camm and Co.âthat was the first I had heard of his recollection with Camm and Co., as far as I recollectâat the time of New ton's failure I had the bills in my hands which I had discounted, shown in Exhibits 23 to 25, amounting to Â£2,059 (is. 5d. (I make it Â£2,200 in round figures), of which S. and E. Ransome. Wallis, Sons, and Co., the Welch Grape Juice Company, and John Camm and Co. are the acceptorsâthey were drawn for odd amounts, such as Â£394 0s. 4d. and Â£297 13s. 5d.âI inferred from that they were the amounts on the invoices of goods supplied and were trade billsâif I had known that they were accommodation bills I would not have discounted themâI discounted one bill after my interview with himâthat was on July 15th.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Rogers Brothers' guarantee was Â£1,000âNewton informed me that they were responsible for unpaid bills, and we have letters to that effectâwe had no acceptance of Rogers Brothers.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. We had no direct communication with Wallis, Sons and Co.âour inquiries in the ordinary course of business were satisfactory.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. All Thomas and Short's bills have been paid.

Cross-examined byMR. KERSHAW The information about Camm and Co. came from Newton himself.

JOHN BRETT . I am manager of the Mincing Lane Branch of the London and Westminster BankâI know Edward and Norman Rogers, who carried on business as Rogers Brothers, 21, Mincing Lane, as Colonial brokersâthey have been customers of ours since March 28th, 1898, when they opened an account with the bank, in the course of which acceptances would be discounted and advances made on the production of warrantsâthe limit of the discounts was fixed at Â£10,000âthey mentioned their own bankers, the City Bank, but they wanted further facilities as they had reached the limit of the City Bank, which was Â£40.000, and I was referred by them to the City Bankâthe result of our inquiries was perfectly satisfactoryâI agreed to open an account and took their signaturesâI also went to their office in Mincing Lane and saw both partners thereâI asked hem to give me a balance sheetâthey demurred to my request, but ultimately put it into the hands of an accountant named Thompson, who drew out a rough balance sheet showing their capital at about Â£30,000âit was made out in my presence from books and accountsâafter he had drawn it out it was seen by the partners, who saw she result of what he had doneâwe were altogetherâthe balance sheet satisfied me that they had money in their business, coupled with their exceptionally good references, and I agreed to give them discount facilities to a limit of Â£10.000âthe account remained open until their failure on November 21st, 1901âin that period we discounted acceptances of S. and E. Ransome, Thomas and Short, Richard Newton, and John Camm and Co., A. and E. Richardson, Kevorkian, Taylor and Co., the Welch Grape Juice Company, A. J. Hadler and Co., W. Hodson, and othersâExhibit 33 is a summary of the bills discounted by my bank on Rogers Brothers account up to November,

1901âthey include bills of S. and E. Ransome from April, 1898, to November, 1900," for Â£31,651; Newton, from April 28th to March, 1901, Â£10,645 18s. 1d., and Camm and Co., Â£320 7s. 6d.; Thomas and Short from April, 1898, to March, 1900, Â£3,057, and A. and E. Richardson, from May to September, 1901, Â£2,098; a total of Â£49,441âalmost all of them were for odd amounts, from which I took them to be ordinary trade billsâI believed they were trade billsâif I had known that they were accommodation bills I would not have taken themâfrom time to time I communicated with the head office, where S. and E. Ransome had an accountâI learned from the head office that Ransomes were drawing bills with a Mr. Hodson, and that Mr. Hodson was drawing on them, in consequence of which in November, 1900,1 went to Rogers Brothers' officeâI saw one of them and referred to the bills drawn by them upon Ransomesâhe told me they were trade bills on both sides, that they sold goods for Ransomes as brokers, and to Ransomes as merchants, and there was business done on both sidesâI suggested that bills might be drawn for the balanceâh said that would be inconvenient, and that the whole business was quite convenientâas from November, 1900, I discounted no more bills drawn by Rogers on RansomesâI refused to do so on instructions from my head officeâI had several conversations with Rogers Brothers' about Newton's acceptancesâin consequence of a conversation with them I ceased to do Newton's bills in March, 1901âI asked Rogers Brothers what the bills were forâthey told me Newton was doing a large business with themâthe amount of bills was increasing beyond the reference which I had got from the bankers, and I inquired more about Newton from Rogers Brothers; I did not want to go so far as they wanted toâafter the conversation I discounted some of Newton's bills, but not allâRogers Brothers complained to me about my restricting their business and said the business was all good business, but I said I could not go beyond the banker's referenceâI had Rogers Brothers assurance that Thomas and Short's bills were really trade billsâlater on I heard unfavourable reports and communicated with Rogers BrothersâI told them what I had heardâthey said the reports were not trueâI thought they were sufficiently authentic for me not to do businessâI did not discount any more billsâin March, 1901, I heard adverse rumours with regard to NewtonâI asked one of Rogers Brothers how Newton was going on, as we had several bills runningâhe told me he was doing very well, and he had a very good business, that the rumours were incorrect, and that they were themselves protected by some deeds which they had in their possession covering the bills; that they had collected security on the bills which were drawn for goodsâI said, if they would lodge the collateral security with me, I would take bills to a larger amount, considering they were trade billsâthey said they had agreed not to part with the deedsâthey did not give them to meâthe total amount I discounted was Â£10,645âtowards the middle of 1900 I received instructions from my directors, in consequence of which I called upon Rogers BrothersâI saw Mr. Edward, and subsequently bothâI asked them for a balance sheet, as we had made such large advances we should like to know how much of their own capital they had in the business

nessâthey said it was a very good business, and they prepared a balance sheetâMr. Edward gave me Exhibit 3, which is a balance-sheet, which shows a surplus of assets Â£31,574 12s. 1d. on December 31st, 1899âfor the preceding half year beginning in JuneâI was satisfied, and continued to discount acceptances for them, and to grant loansâin the course of the account, I had the acceptances of A. and E. Richardson for discountingâthey were first brought by Mr. Terry, a clerk of Rogers Brothersâhe gene rally came with the bills, unless they came themselvesâThompson was away illâseeing that Richardsons were new people, I asked, "What are these people? Are the bills all right?"âhe said they were good bills, I could refer to bankers, and that Richardsons were in a good way of businessâthe name of the bank was on the back of the billsâI made enquiriesâthen I discounted several acceptances of A. and E. Richardsonâthey were all for odd amountsâI looked up directories, and found that Richardsons were stick peopleâI believed the bills were trade acceptances by Richardsons, drawn by Rogers Brothersâfour were left on our hands at the date of the failureâthe total amount of the four bills left is Â£1,633 0s. 9d.âthe total is Â£2,398, as shown in Exhibit 33âthe bill for Â£457 2s. 2d. has written upon it "against canes," which is a clear indication that it is a trade billâamongst other customers at our bank were Wallis and Sons, consisting of Ransome and Algernon Wallis, at the Mincing Lane Branchâthat account was opened in June, 1899âthey were described as whole-sale provision merchants of 5, Tooley Streetâboth the Wallises cameâthey said they had banked at Martin's Bank, to whom they referred usâthey said they had reached their limit at that bank, and that they wanted further discount facilitiesâI agreed to open the account, subject to the reference being satisfactoryâI received a satisfactory report, and conesquently opened the accountâin June, 1901, I received an intimation that the partnership was dissolved, and that Ransome Wallis had retired from the businessâthe account remained open till October 4th, 1901, the firm remaining the sameâduring the currency of that account, I discounted acceptances of Rogers Brothers, William Hodson, Thomas and Short, S. and E. Ransome, Taylor and Weaverâthe amounts and particulars are in Exhibit 34âthe total is Â£54,240âthose of Rogers Brothers were Â£44,385, Hodson Â£4315, Thomas and Short Â£1,819, Taylor and Weaver Â£1,347, S. and E. Ransome Â£2,372âthe total of the bills discounted amounted to Â£227,991, from June, 1899, to October, 1901âthe majority were for odd amountsâI believed they were trade acceptancesâI inquired particularly of Wallises as to Rogers Brothers, because I did not see the connection between the two firmsâRansome Wallis told me they were all cheese warrants, lodged with Rogers Brothers for sale, and he offered, if I did not like the bills, to have securities which were with Rogers Brothers placed in our hands against the loanâwhen L heard that Newton was drawing on Wallis, Sons and Co., I saw Algernon Wallis, who told me he would refer to his books and Jet me knowâI received this letter of August 30th, 1900. signed Wallis, Sons and Co., that the bills drawn by R. Newton amounting to Â£1,251 7s. were "against goods which we hold as security"âthe Exhibit shows ten bills discounted from June 25th to August 27th, accepted by

Rogers Brothers in nine cases, and by Taylor and Weaver in the tenth for Â£250 14s. 2d.âthey were all dishonouredâthe figure Â£3,296 14s. 10d. represents the loss on those bills which our bank sufferedâat the time we made the advances, I believed they were trade acceptances.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Rogers Brothers referred me to the City Bankâthe result of my inquiry was satisfactoryâthey wanted a larger loan limitâI did not look upon Rogers Brothers' demurring to produce a balance-sheet as a serious matter, but rather as if they suggested that "Why should you suspect us?"âprobably you are right that Rogers Brothers.' turnover was Â£128,000âat the time of the failure there was a net balance of Â£2,100 to their credit on current accountâthe account was profitableâthe interest was over Â£6,000âI put the figure at a thirdâEdward Rogers showed me some deeds with regard to Newton, which I did not go intoâI said if he lodged them with me, I might do something more in the way of billsâhe told me he could not part with them, as he held them as cover for Newton's liability to himâNewton's, Thomas and Short's and Camm's bills had been met at maturityâin June, 1900 he brought me the balance-sheet to December 31st, 1899âI do not know Abberfield's writing, but I take it he was a clerk of Rogers BrothersâI discounted bills of Kevorkianâthere was one at the time of the failure, which has been paid since.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. I was informed that the firm of Rogers Brothers was of the highest standingâprevious to Wallis, Sons and Co. opening account, we had a customer named Morton Down and Co., bill discountersâwe made independent inquiries with regard to each firmâboth were satisfactoryâwe discounted Â£250,000 of Morton and Co.'s paper, Â£60,000 of Wallis, Sons and Co.âÂ£50,000 were ordinary transactionsâabout Â£80,000 may have been for even amounts, including thirty-six bills of Wallis, Sons and Co.âthey were dealing with well-known firms in the commercial worldâat the time of the bankruptcy Â£2,000 was standing to their credit at the bankâI have marked cheques for Mr. Ruegg of the London and County Bankâsome were from Rogers Brothers, and some, I believe, from Wallis, Sons and Co.âthat would make them practically as good as a bank note.

Cross-examined byMR. HUMPHREYS. Four-fifths of the total acceptances of S. and E. Ransome and Thomas and Short were those of Rogers Brothers, being Â£44,000 out of Â£54,000âRogers Brothers banked with us about fifteen months before Wallis, Sons and Co.âI never said to Wallis, Sons and Co., "Oh, Rogers Brothers' are all right"âI preferred to have Rogers Brothers' billsâI preferred to have two names to the warrantsâthe majority of bills discounted upon which we made our ordinary profit were before June, 1901âI believe no bill was left on our hands before Ransome Wallis retired from the firm on June 17th, 1901âthe first dishonoured bill was June 24th.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. Before opening the account with S. and Ransome I received satisfactory reports that they were of good standing, and with a business of considerable magnitudeâI never saw either of them

âall their bills referred to in Exhibit 34 that we discounted, amounting to Â£2,372, had run off.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I frequently saw Thompson in connection with Rogers Brothers' businessâI have not seen him since the failureâI have not spoken to TerryâI saw him at the police-courtâcheques are drawn in favour of names, and sometimes of numbersâwe pay no attention to the payeeâI made inquiries as to all bills of Thomas and Short before taking themâmy answers with regard to Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. apply also with regard to Thomas and Short.

Re-examined. Referring to Exhibits 34 and 35, our losses are: Rogers Brothers Â£1,633, Wallis, Sons and Co. Â£3,296, and upon warrants of Rogers Brothers Â£21,972âthe total is Â£26,900âthis balance-sheet was handed me by E. B. Rogers in June, 1900âthis is the first bill of Richardson's which was brought me by TerryâI believe the writing is that of one of the partners of Rogers Brothers.

AGNES RICHARDSON . In April last I was in business with my brother Edward as stick manufacturers in the Globe Road, Mile Endâbefore that we had bought canes from Rogers Brothers for our businessâwe always paid by cheque, never by billâthe amounts varied from Â£20 to Â£100âon April 29th, Rogers Brothers' clerk, Terry, called, and asked us, "Will you do Messrs. Rogers a turn "I said, "We don't mind doing anybody a turn, so long as we do not suffer by it"âmy brother and I took him up stairsâmy brother said, "Why have Rogers Brothers sent here?"Terry said, "Because he has known you some years," and he asked if we would sign some bills in exchange for which he would give us othersâwe said that we wouldâhe came again with letter Exhibit 124 and four billsâin the letter, signed Rogers Brothers, the firm offered to pay our expenses, and we held the bills Exhibits 125 and 126 as securityâ[MR. KNIGHT: This letter is in Norman Rogers writing.]âwe also received the statement Exhibit 27, setting out the billsâthe names on the bills are Hadler, Ransome, Thomas and Short, and Newtonâwe accepted bills amounting to Â£902 7s. 4d. and Â£1,668 15s. 4d.âTerry said, "Will you sign these as well?"I said, "If Rogers does not meet them himself, we shall never be able to meet the bills, because we have only started a little time, and have not got much money"âTerry said, "Don't worry, Miss Richardson, Rogers Brothers will meet the bills; you will be all right"âabout May 6th I got the further bills and statements in Exhibits 128, 129. and 130âwe accepted two of Newton's bills for Â£400 and Â£511 17s. 7d. in exchange for bills for Â£911 17s. 7d.âin consequence of a visit from our bank manager I wrote to Rogers Brothers, Exhibit 131, of May 21st, of which I produce a copy (Enquiring if the bills were all straightforward.)âTerry called the next afternoon and said there was nothing whatever to worry about, that Rogers Brothers would provide fresh bills to meet them, and added, "Don't mention it to anybody else"âwe said, "No"âRogers Brothers picked up six of the billsâwe got another statement and another batch of bills on August 21stâwe became liable for Â£1,618 0s. 6d. in billsâon August 29th Rogers Brothers gave us a cheque, five bank notes, and a lot of silver and coppers and the Statements Exhibits 133-4âthe letter was handed in by a clerk

at the doorâit contained Â£360 in allâExhibit 134 relates to Â£2,584 in bills, and Exhibits 1.34 to 141 contains the bills left on our hands as security at the time of the failureâRansomes Â£218, Newton Â£483 and Â£579, Thomas and Short Â£200âExhibit 143 shows bills of ours outstanding at the time of Rogers Brothers' failure amounting to Â£3,473 0s. 6d.âwe accepted bills for about Â£70 lessâa neighbour who had lent us money came in when I was looking over Rogers' bills he said, "What is that, do you deal in bills"âI said "No, only doing a turn for somebody"âhe said, "All right"âhe sold us upâthe Exhibits 2 and 2A bear our signaturesâthe words "Against canes" were not on them when we signed those two billsâI am positive of that.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Mr. Wilson was the man who came into the shopâhe does several businessesâhe had lent us Â£1,000âwe put it in the businessâhe came in October, 1901.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I had no correspondence with Shortâonly with Rogers Brothersâon the Saturday after the failure we had a letter from Glyn Mills asking us to pay bills of Thomas and Shortâwe never heard of Short except when we secured his bills.

EDWARD RICHARDSON . I am the witness Agnes Richardson's brotherâI have heard her evidenceâit is quite correctâthe words "Against canes" were not upon the bills 2 and 2A when we signed them.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Messrs. Rogers paid us at the rat of 1 per cent, for our troubleâit was about Â£20âit may have been Â£30âI do not think it was Â£40âI never paid any billâI signed for Rogers.

LOUIS JESSE RUEGG . I am manager of the Tower Bridge branch of the London and County Bankâon April 1st Algernon Wallis came to open an account in the name of Wallis, Sons and Co.âhe asked me and I agreed to give him discount accommodation to the extent of Â£5,000âhe said he had been banking at Martin's Bank, and referred me to themâhe told me they had been having bills discounted by Morton Dyer, a bill broker, who had introduced him to the London and Westminster BankâI asked him upon what firms he was going to draw uponâhe gave me the list No. 5, on which are the names of Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Shortâthe limits, of these firms are Â£2,000 and Â£1,500âthe names include people in the provision trade, some in the immediate neighbourhoodâI made inquiry at Martin's Bank, and on April 2nd opened the accountâa day or two later Ransome Wallis called and signed the book, and I had a long conversation with him with reference to the accountâhe said they were general produce importers and merchantsâin the course of the account we discounted bills to the amount of Â£27,000âsome were accepted by Rogers BrothersâI noticed those bills were increasing, and I told Algernon that the amount was getting larger than the figures he had given me, Â£2,000, and I wanted an explanationâhe said they were doing a larger business with Rogers Brothers, that they were trade bills, I need have no fear of the account, and that Rogers Brothers were making a very large profit in their business, Â£30,000 a yearâI believed his statementsâamongst the bills some were accepted by Ransomesâthose exceeded the amount he gave me in the list of Â£1,000â"he told me they were ordinary trade bills

âduring the currency of the account I discounted acceptances amounting to, Rogers Â£6,470, S. and E. Ransome Â£4,300, and Thomas and Short Â£4,034âthe bills in this schedule are not met-the total is Â£5,700 in round figuresâa number of cheques were paid into the account drawn by Rogers Brothersâsome by Thomas and Short, and some by the RansomesâWallis's cheques were drawn to numbersâin September, 1901, I noticed that Messrs. Wallis were paving in day by day cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers in small amounts at first, reaching about Â£2,000, then it increased to Â£6,000, Â£7,000, and then Â£8,000âWallis, Sons and Co. drew cheques against them almost as soon as they were paid in, still to numbersâthe cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers were bearer chequesâin the names of different firms of wharfingers and so onâup to September 24th, 1901, the credit balance of Wallis, Sons and Co.'s account was Â£4,019 13s. 3d.âon that day cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers were paid in amounting to Â£3,314 14s. 2d.âin all cheques were paid in amounting to Â£6,928 18s. 5d., including a number of Rogers Brothers' chequesâthe same day cheques were presented for payment drawn by Wallis, Sons and Co. to the total amount of Â£6,795 1s. 1d., or Â£2.775 2s. 8d. more than stood to their creditâsimilar things had occurred several times, and in consequence I sent for Algernon on September 20thâI told him that I could not take up Rogers Brothers' uncleared cheques unless Wallis, Sons and Co. gave me securityâI asked for an explanation why they were receiving so many cheques from Rogers Brothersâhe said that large quantities of foreign provisions were coming in, and documents presented to them for which they had to give their cheques to meet the sudden demands, and that the cheques were drawn in favour of the persons where the goods were originally lodged at the different wharves, and that Rogers Brothers were the payees, because the documents were received from the different wharfingers, and that they made the cheques payable to them, because the goods were originally lodged thereâI believed his explanation and went on paying the cheques for a few daysâlooking at Schedule 29 I find a list of cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers with the names of different wharfingers in the neighbourhood as-payees, and all drawn to bearerâthe total of the cheques paid on September 24th and 25th was Â£4,244 14s. 2d.âthey were not metâI saw both Rogerses and Algernon Wallis the same day, November 26th or 27thâI asked for the money for the cheques and when they were going to meet themâEdward Rogers said the cheques were only given for Wallis's accommodation, and they could not meet themâI said they would have to do soâhe said that Wallis, Sons and Co. would have to provide for themâAlgernon Wallis shrugged his shouldersâI placed the matter in the hands of our solicitors, Messrs. Bayley, Adams, Hawkes, and Noble I should say the next morningâafter that the two Rogers called and made various propositions to meâone was that if we would allow time they would deposit dock warrants to cover the amount of the chequesâI referred them to our solicitorsâthose documents were never lodged with us, nor any other securityâwe took proceedings and recovered judgmentâby that time the firm had stopped paymentâon September 26th we stopped payment of Wallis, Sons and Co.'s chequeâat that time there was a

balance to their credit of Â£1,687 14s. 3d.âagainst that was the Â£4,244 14s. 2d. which had been credited to them on cheques of Rogers Brothers, but which turned out to be worthless, leaving a debit of Â£4,250 in round figuresâanother cheque drawn by Hadler for Â£485 6s. 4d. was dishonoured subsequentlyâÂ£3,043 was the loss to the Bank on chequesâI should not have paid the cheques had I known they were accommodationâWallis told me they were given for value receivedâI believed himâthe bills were for odd amounts from which I inferred that they were trade bills, and in that belief I allowed them to be discounted.â[Mr. Muir put in a medical certificate that Rogers Brothers' clerk, Thompson, was too ill to attend.]

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. The cross-cheque transactions began about the beginning of September, 1901âa marked cheque is a cheque payable to some account sent to the bank upon which it is drawn, and marked by that bank, when it becomes a first charge on the credit balance at that bankâI took that precaution on several occasions, by sending cheques by a messenger to the London and Westminster with cheques which were markedâI do not think any were marked at LloydsâI sent on one occasion, when the messenger was told by a clerk that the manager was out, that the cheque would be all right, there was plenty of money to meet it, but they could not mark itâwe do not keep a record of cheques we pay to other banks.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. I found that Wallis, Sons, and Co. had banked at Martin's for over thirty years, and that it was a good accountâI sent a clerk, I do not make inquiries personallyâthe result was that the Wallises were doing a large businessâI was informed that Rogers Brothers were colonial brokers and merchantsâat the time of the failure Â£10,000 was outstanding in billsâI received the notice of dissolution of partnership between the two Wallises.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. We had opened our new branch previously to Algernon Wallis calling to open the account on April 1stâwe had issued a circularâI think Algernon Wallis referred to itâhe said he had received itâhe asked a limit of Â£5,000 to Â£10,000âI agreed to do Â£5,000 on April 1stâon April 11th I agreed to another Â£5,000 if necessaryâI do not remember his writing this list in our officeâthe name of Bilson was not on the list he sent meâI never heard of any other listâI had several conversations with Wallis, Sons, and Co., as to bills, but I cannot give datesâI have no record of themâAlgernon brought bills on one or two occasionsâI saw Algernon about September 20th, 22nd, or 25th, about the change chequesâI asked for securityâhe gave itâthen I agreed to cash his cheques as beforeâthe Wallises gave me some grape juice warrantsâthey told me Hodsons was to be turned into a limited companyâaccountants were referred to, and the result was that debentures in Hodson's were to come to usâthere were Â£3,000 in debentures and Â£3,000 in preference shares.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. Short made no representation to me, I never saw himâI inquired as to the position of Thomas and Short at their bankers'âI was satisfied with the answers I received, both with

regard to Thomas and Short and with regard to Rogers BrothersâI have no experience of accommodation billsâI discounted one years agoâa bill given for produce lodged is a legitimate transactionâsome bills were for even amounts.

Re-examined. I fix the date of September 20th from the letter, Exhibit 491, written by our bank on September 19th to the Wallisesâ491a is a letter written by Wallises to Rogers Brothers, enclosing letter from the London and County Bank, in which was the expression, "awful pity," also by the fact that on September 20th I gave notice to the Cold Storage Company, and received a delivery orderâI sold the grape juice for about Â£257âI never got Hodson's debentures nor preference shares.

JAMES BINGLEY YOUNG . I am manager to Williams Deacon, bankers, at St. Mary AxeâI was introduced to Rogers Brothers in September last yearâon September 19th I saw them both at the Bank, when they called to open an account with discount facilities up to Â£10,000, and accommodation loans on warrants from Â£10,000 to Â£15,000âthey mentioned the firms of Anderson, Peek Frean, and others, and showed us their nine months' balance-sheet to December, 1899âExhibit 3 is a copy which I tookâI believe it is a true copyâit shows a surplus of assets over liabilities of Â£31,574 12s. 1d.âI made inquiries as to their standingâI received favourable reportsâI agreed to take approved bills up to Â£5,000âI called and saw Edward Rogers, and told him what I have here saidâcoming out of the office I met Norman Rogers, and mentioned what I had saidâI sent back their balance-sheet later in the dayâthey said the account would be no good to them on those terms.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. We did not open an accountâI do not recollect their offering an independent valuation of their affairs.

HENRY SMITH . I am manager at the head office of the London and Westminster BankâS. and E. Ransome and Co. and their predecessors have had an account at our bank fifty yearsâfrom July, 1897, to the beginning of 1900 we discounted for Ransomes' bills accepted by William Hodson, Wallis, Sons, and Co., Thomas and Short, and Richard NewtonâExhibit 379 is a schedule stating the amounts and the dates on which they were accepted, for three yearsâthe bills accepted by William Hodson discounted for Ransomes represented Â£13,800, on Wallis, Sons, and Co. Â£17,905, Thomas and Short Â£743, and Richard Newton Â£1,056âshortly before March 29th, 1900, I had a conversation with Arthur Wallis with regard to bills accepted by HodsonâI thought the amount was running up too rapidly, and questioned himâhe admitted that they were not all for goodsâI said I should take no more of them, and the account must be closed so far as Hodson's bills were concerned, and that I did not car about taking Wallis's name, and that I did not like cross drawings between Wallis and Ransomeâthe next day I wrote Exhibit 507, giving Wallis, Sons, and Co. notice to discontinue' the facilitiesâI received Exhibit 506 from S. and E. Ransome, of March 29th:"We have received your favour of even date, and note your wishes, and shall have much pleasure in conforming therewith"âabout that time I saw Arthur Ransome about his capitalâI said that we had had certain inquiries, and I asked him what

their capital wasâhe said he would go and ask his partnerâI asked him to let me have his balance-sheetâhe said theirs was an old-fashioned firm, and that he had not got oneâI heard no more, and closed the accountâthe bills ran offâup to March, 1900,1 believed the bills were trade bills.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I never had any direct communication with Messrs. RogersâI never saw themâI never sent for them, but I believe our Mincing Lane manager sent one to meâI saw Thompson.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. The Ransomes transterred their account to our Temple Bar branch, but came back to us in 1893âthe account has always-been in creditâan account was opened at our Temple Bar branch in 1866 as Eyre and Co.âThomas Eyre was a partnerâI told you at the Mansion House that the credit was Â£1,200 to Â£1,500âit was a very fair accountâat the time of the failure there was Â£644 to the credit of Ransomes on current accountâthey could have drawn it outâthey handed it over to the Official ReceiverâI only saw Ransome Wallisâhe answered my questions in a free mannerâinquiries came to me about the Norwich Union soon after seeing Arthur Ransome.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I never had any intercourse with Short.

BENJAMIN GEORGE WILMER . I trade with Mr. Ives as the Ashton and Green Iron Companyâwe are merchants and manufacturersâour firm discounted for Messrs. Wallis, Sons, and Co. the bills shown upon Exhibit 332âthey are acceptances of William Hodson, S. and E. Ransome, Rogers Brothers, J. Anderson and Son, Charles Button, Taylor and Weaver, and Dexours Parry and Co.âthe total amount is Â£3,181 14s. 9d. between March 25th, 1900, and July 30th, 1901âall have run off and been paidâ[Exhibits 334 to 347 and 357 were read in reference to these acceptances.]âI had a conversation with Ransome Wallis in reference to bills on February 19th, 1900âI asked him if these were genuine trade bills on Hodson, Anderson, and Rogersâhe said yes, and told me that the bills for Rogers were acceptances for produce they had for sale, supplied by Wallis to Hodson, or Button, or Anderson, as grocers, and that Hodson accepted the billsâwe discounted them as trade billsâthey are spoken of as customers' bills by Algernon Wallis.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. I was not asked before the Magistrate about my conversation with Ransome WallisâBills were guaranteed by McCall in the first instance, but not afterwards.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. I discounted some of Ransome's acceptancesâI never came in contact with themâI discounted the bills because I thought they were good trade billsâthey were all met.

Re-examined. I gave a proof to Mr. Knight, in which I mentioned my conversation with Ransome Wallis.

EGERTON SPENCER GREY (Re-examined.) I have investigated the defendants books to see how acceptances were metâRogers Brothers kept a diary in which the acceptances of all the defendants were keptâExhibit 560 gives an exampleâthe proceeds of the bills are split 'up and passed to their private accountsâin no instance was the money provided by the drawer direct to the bank of the acceptorâthere is a list of acceptances of

Ransome's drawn by Rogers Brothers, with dates when payableâto meet these bills at maturity Rogers Brothers are credited in Ramsome's books with remittances on the dates stated of different amounts, totalling the same amount as the billsâthere are twelve cheques for Â£6,882 8s. 9d., which total the amount of ten billsâthose twelve amounts credited in Ransome's books are made up of various smaller amounts, the details of which are given in this Exhibitâone cheque for Â£798 17s. 7d. is made up of a cheque of Ransome's for Â£394 7s. 5d., a cheque of Steer for 16s. 8d., a postal order for Â£1, and a cheque of Thomas and Short for Â£402 3s. 6d.âother items are made up in a similar way as shown in the exhibit (Exhibit 560 was then shown and explained by the witness to the Jury.)âthat is a fair sample of the way bills were metâI know of no business book-keeping reasons for treating remittances in that wayâExhibits 561 to 563 are slips forming a similar document found amongst Rogers Brothers' papersâthey show similar transactions to those shown in Exhibit 560âthey are in various writingsâsome are in Newton's, and some in the clerk Terry'sâthey show the general exchange of cheques between the parties.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. There were other book-keepers besides Terryâthere was nothing in the nature of secret booksâit is usual to enter a bill at the due date for reference.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. It is suggested that the different persons named in Exhibit 560 sent cheques to meet billsâwhen a bill of Ransome's was coming due, say for Â£700, Ransome Wallis sent a cheque to help to meet itâthat is not inferenceâI find the entries in the bill books produced of the bills and the amounts you give from them are right.

Re-examined. I say these bills were met by arrangement between Wallis, Sons, and Co., and Rogers Brothersâthat is shown by Algernon Wallis's letters, the books, the slips, and the examination of Wallis, who said that he had been daily one or two hours in Rogers Brothers' office with the two Rogers arranging how the cheques were to be drawn, how acceptances were to be met by other cheques, and for what amounts, and the Exhibit shows the method by which it was done. (Portions of the bankruptcy examination of Algernon Wallis and the correspondence between the defendants, including exhibits 561, 563, 457, 461, 462 were here read.)

HENRY IVOR BEVAN . I am one of the firm of Frith, Sands, and Co., merchant bankersâwe have advanced moneys by way of acceptances upon the security of warrants for goods with Rogers Brothers since 1898âon their failure we had eleven contracts outstandingâExhibit 183 summarises themâthe total amount on loans outstanding is Â£15,254âthe goods were valued at Â£17,927âthat gives our margin of 15 per centâour broker's valuation was Â£6,638âthey realised Â£6,631âthe difference between Rogers Brothers' valuation and the sale proceeds is Â£11,298âwe accept the valuation of the persons who produce the warrantsâwe estimate our loss at Â£8,623âthe original loan to Rogers Brothers was fixed at Â£5,000âthey a little time afterwards asked us to increase itâwe agreedâat that time there was Â£12,000 credit runningâMr. Terry asked us to increase the loan in September, 1901âI said that we preferred Â£10,000 to be the limit, and should charge extra commissionâthe memorandum A

as to warrants between Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Short, in October, 1900, in Exhibits 185 and 186, was the first I heard of any connection between those firmsâon August 22nd, 1900, Short came and asked us to advance him money on terms similar to those with Rogers Brothers on the deposit of warrantsâI asked him, and he stated his capital to be Â£5,000âI asked him who his bankers were, and he said Glyn'sâI believed him and made him an advance amounting to Â£3,875 upon goods which he valued at Â£4,552, but which our brokers valued at Â£2,381, and which were sold for Â£2,280âthe difference between Thomas and Short's valuation and the sale proceeds was Â£2,264âour loss was Â£1,387âExhibit 184 shows the warrant numbers, the description and the quantities of the goods which were included in our loan contractsâthey were nearly all Rogers Brothers' goodsâI think there are two items of Short'sâwhen I went to the wharf to get delivery there were no goods represented by the warrantsâthe goods had been parted with under a guarantee from Rogers Brothersâthe declared value at Smith's wharf was Â£832âwe advanced Â£1,600 on those goodsâI told Terry that we preferred having goods valued by an independent brokerâhe replied that that was the usual custom of firms they did business withâI proceeded at once to get a valuation made by Messrs. Barberâthat was a long businessâwe sent them a list before we knew anything of the failure, but we did not receive the complete valuation till afterwardsâI saw E. Rogers on October 14th at his officeâI do not think he had publicly failedâwe had a long conversation about the state of his firm, and he seemed very confident that they would be able to tide over any difficulties they were inâI asked him whether the values of the goods were correctâI had been to Mr. Brett at the London and Westminster Bank, who had an appointment with Rogers, and he told me that he believed we should find the valuation of Rogers Brothers substantially correctâRogers said the valuations were perfectly correct, subject to the market laws and nothing more, and he asked me whether I should be prepared to extend the date of the new bills running, and see them all rightâI told him it depended upon the value of the goods how far we should be able to help him, and that we could not extend the credit five or six months till we knew the value of the goods was correct, and that we could get the money for themâhe objected to Eastwood as the valuer, and suggested BarbersâI told him that Barbers was the firm I proposed to go to; then Barbers gave the carpets to Eastwoods to value, asâthey considered they knew most about themâEdward said his brother Norman was responsible for their own valuations, that he himself did the finance part of the business and his brother the valuation of goodsâtwo or three days afterwards I saw Edward Rogers as to the sable robes which were valued at Â£65 eachâMessrs. Barber valued them at Â£19 each, and they were independently valued by Thorpe and Co. at within Â£2 or Â£3 of Â£19 eachâthey sold at Â£19 and were valued at Â£23âI picked that out as an instance which appeared to me very flagrantâEdward Rogers said he considered they were worth Â£90, and that a lot had been sold as high as Â£90, and that they had been put up at a public auction twice before, when Â£22 and Â£23 had been bid for themâin Exhibit 176, 166 lamb skin crosses are put into the

contract as being worth Â£1,155âthey were sold for Â£139âhe allowed that that was an over-valuation, but said that his brother Norman Rogers did not value them himself, that he was out of England when the robes cameâhe admitted that the goods pledged with Rogers Brothers by Short were Rogers Brothers' goodsâhe gave as a reason that they wanted further credit, and that Mr. Short was more likely to get it on his separate accountâI saw Short at his office on October 20thâI asked him about the state of his firm and for information about valuesâhe said he was entirely dependent upon whether Rogers Brothers failed or not, that whether he met the bills or not depended entirely upon the solvency of Rogers BrothersâI think it was the following Monday when I asked him about his capitalâhe admitted that his capital was nilâhe had represented it as Â£5,000âI remarked that I supposed he knew what it meant, or what the conesquence was of getting money by false pretencesâhe said, "I know what you mean"âI either said "money" or "credit"âin parting with the advances to both Rogers Brothers and to Thomas and Short I believed they had stated the true market value of the goods, and that the goods were in the warehouses which were named in the warrantsâI also distinctly believed that Short was dealing on his own account, and that he had a capital of Â£5,000.

Cross-examined byMR. ELLIOTT. We did continuous business with Rogers Brothers from 1898 to the time of their suspensionâone commission at 1 per cent, on four months bills, and 1 1/4 per cent, would be I think, about Â£400 a yearâwe did not have independent valuations of goods before the advances, no firm does when they know peopleâthe wharfingers were responsible for the values Rogers Brothers gave them when they took away the goodsâto take up an independent valuation would cost more than the commissionâwe were insured in respect of these transactionsâwe have not recovered upon our policies; we are waiting till this case is overâwe have been out of Â£10,000 for one yearâEdward Rogers did not say that Barber had the reputation of slaughtering goodsâhe brought a bundle of invoices.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. Our firm is 100 years oldâI presume all the goods described in the warrants are at the wharfâthe warrants are transferable when the advance is repaidâwhen samples are taken the number of them are written off the warrantâthe warrant bears the amount taken away and they are deducted from the total.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I have been a partner in the firm of Frith, Sands and Company six yearsâif an advance has been made against the goods the person should tell us they are not hisâShort got the advance on the natural inference by me from his producing the warrants that the goods were his ownâShort said the goods belonged to himâthat was the first question I asked himâhe said that his capital was Â£5,000âI should not have done business without knowing his capitalâthere were only two bills running of Short's when he failedâhe sent the warrants by post first of allâI never suggested that Short should take a partner to increase his capitalâhe never mentioned the firm of Rogers Brothers.

GEORGE ADOLPHUS ELLIOTT . I am chief clerk in the credit department

Of Messrs. Baring Brothers, merchant bankersâabout May 10, 1901, I received a call from somebody representing Rogers Brothers, and afterwards got a letter, No. 49, in respect of a loan of Â£5,000 by acceptances against dock warrants representing China produce up to 80 per cent, of their valueâI replied by letter No. 50, agreeing to loans up to 70 per cent of the valueâExhibit No. 51 represents the issue of the creditâfrom that time we made advances to Rogers Brothers on various contracts contained in Exhibits Nos. 52 to 58, 58 being dated October 4th, 1901âeach contract has a schedule attached of the goods for which warrant would be deposited with us and the valuesâin addition we had Messrs. Ransomes' valuation, and on No. 52 there is, "We have inspected these goods and confirm the values, S. and E. Ransome"âthat is written longways on the margin of several of the valuationsâbelieving those valuations we made the advances shown in Exhibit 59âthe amount of Â£9,850 was outstanding at the failureâthe valuation of those goods certified by Ransomes was Â£14,079âthe margin was 30 per cent, when the failure cameâthe goods were sold and realised Â£4,137 6s. 3d., which left a difference of Â£9,941âÂ£6,712 is the actual lossâwe employed Messrs Barbers, the brokers, to value the goods prior to saleâthey put the value as Â£4,106âa further advance of Â£5,000 was requested by letter, Exhibit 60, of August 8th, 1901âwe also received letter, Exhibit 62, of September 3rd, 1901, from Rogers Brothers, asking for an advance against bristlesâwe did not agree to give further creditâExhibit 58 is a contract of October 4th, 1901, by which the balance of Â£1,240 was available for Messrs. Short to draw upon us forâon that day that document, together with the warrants for the goods mentioned in the schedule to it, was lodged with us and further credit was givenâby Exhibit 58a Messrs. Ransome certify the pricesâthe goods referred to are 1,670 monflon skins, valued at Â£1,419âthey were subsequently sold for Â£213âthe next is 200 lambs' skin crosses valued at Â£350âthose were subsequently sold for Â£97âI implicitly believed when the particulars were handed to me that the values were the true market values, and that the certificate of Ransomes was a true certificate of the market values of the goods they purported to certify.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Before we made the advances we did not value for ourselves, we took the values given us by Ransomes and Rogers Brothersâwe are merchants and bankersâwe do not deal in these goods personallyâI have no personal knowledge of the value of goods, we employ Messrs. BarberâI believe some of the goods were sold by private treaty and some by auction.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. We trusted to the Ransomes' declaration of value and bona fides; they were our principalsâwe inquired as to the financial position of Messrs. RogersâI never saw the Ransomes.

ARTHUR BOWDEN SMITH . I am one of the managers of the credit department of Baring Brothers, Limitedâa credit was opened on April 16,1901, by the defendant Short as Thomas and Short for Â£2,700 against warrants for goodsâin August 1901, a new credit was arrangedâExhibits 144 and 145 are the contractsâthe total value of the warrants is Â£3,180, less

15 per cent: the amount is Â£2,703âI required the prices to be confirmed, which was done by Rogers Brothers by their signature being put at the foot of the schedule, "We confirm the prices to be correct., Rogers Brothers"âwhen I accepted the drafts, and parted with them, I believed the prices in Exhibit 147 were the current market prices of those goods, and that Rogers Brothers had made an independent valuation of themâon August 28th a further sum of Â£300 was advanced on similar termsâExhibits 148 to 152A show the position of affairs at the time of the failure of Thomas and Shortâthe total advanced at the time of the valuation was Â£2,680 to Thomas and Short, and Â£3,172 to Rogers Brothersâour broker's valuations were Â£1,316, the price realised was Â£1,584 15s. 2d. a difference of Â£1,587 4s. 10d.âour actual loss was Â£1,098 5s. 10d.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. By the contract we rely upon the broker's valuation in addition to the statement of value by the pledgerâRogers Brothers' was an independent valuation.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. For their confirmation we did not pay Rogers Brothers anythingâthat is not uncommonâI had no application from Short's son to redeem the goods for the Â£300 loan for Â£300âI have no knowledge of it, nor that those goods were sold and realised over Â£300.

JOHN BRETT (Re-examined.) The total amount of advances to Rogers Brothers outstanding at the failure was Â£36,339âthe value of the goods stated by Rogers Brothers was Â£45,515âour margin is 20 per cent.âat the date of the failure we had the goods valued by Messrs. Barber and Sons, brokersâtheir valuation was roughly Â£13,000âthe price realised by the sales was Â£14,367âthe loss to the bank was Â£21,972âat the time I made the advances referred to in Exhibit 35 I believed that the value put by Rogers Brothers was the market values of the goodsâthe Thibet crosses valued by Rogers Brothers at 49s. each or Â£1,269 were sold for Â£317.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I have been to Smith's wharf with Rogers Brothersâthey did not show me the invoices there, they showed me the goodsâI was not a sufficient expert to know whether they were worth the moneyâI saw valuable furs at what seemed a very large priceâI have seen the invoices, but not on the occasion of going to the wharfâwe instructed Mr. Barber to sell the fursâwe left the prices to his discretion, as he was an expert in these matters, and we did not impose upon him any reserve, but the sale was delayed till it was the proper time to sell.

PERCY RICHARDSON . I have charge of the Commercial Credits Department of Brown, Shipley and Co., merchant bankers, of Founder's Court, Lothburyâwe have done business with Rogers Brothers since June, 1900âI received applications from them for advances against merchandiseâwe required an independent valuation, wrote them to that effect and received the letter, Exhibit 64, of June 7th, after an interview with them, that Thomas and Short were agreeable to check the valuationsâwe agreed to make advances to Rogers Brothers as shown in Exhibit 65, to the extent of Â£5.000 against warrants up to 85 per cent, of the value of the goodsâI called upon Short to inquire if he had actually seen the goods; I saw his

sonâShort afterwards called and told me that he had seen the goods and valued themâI have not the dates, but these transactions were between June, 1900, and April, 1901, and Exhibit 79 refers to an advance of Â£1,000 on the security of warrants for goods specified in that scheduleâthe certificate states, "The present market value of the said goods is Â£1,177"âthat is signed, "Rogers Brothers"âon the same document is "We confirm the above prices, Thomas and Short"âMr. Short continued to act as independent valuer after May 17th, but in consequence of his continued application to us for credits on his own account we declined because we knew of the business he was doing with Rogers Brothersâwe required another valuer; "S. and E. Ransome" were substituted; and their certificates appeared as the valuersâat the foot of the certificate, Exhibit 85, dated September 22nd, with reference to Â£2,200 on loan, the specified market value of the goods is Â£2,585âthat is signed, "Rogers Brothers," and at the foot is, "We hereby certify the above as correct"âthat is signed "S. and E. Ransome and Co."âin the schedule is 1,687 lambs' skins, at 16s. 6d., valued at Â£1,391âthose were eventually sold at 5s. 3d. to 5s. 4d., making a total of Â£485âwe made an advance on April 12th on two bills of Richardson of Â£500 eachâone bill was for Â£1,200 and the other of Â£1,000âExhibit 87 shows the amount of loans outstanding at the date, and the failure of Rogers Brothers as Â£5,912 5s. 9d.âthe independent valuation of S. and E. Ransome and Go in respect of warrants deposited by Rogers Brothers was Â£7,067, and in respect of Ransomes Â£6,999âour loss was Â£2,966âour valuations were Â£3,159âthe amount realised was Â£3,862, or less than half the amount of their valuationâat the time I accepted the drafts I believed the values in the schedules of the loan contracts were the real market values of the goodsâlooking at Exhibit 88 I find goods valued by Thomas and Short were re-valued by Ransomesâsome of the goods were pledged again.

Cross-examined bySIR JOSEPH LEESE. I have not added up the figures, but the loans were about Â£16,000, and the amount outstanding was about Â£5,900âthe first loan of Â£1,000 run offâBarbers sold the goods for usâwe did not give them a reserve, but told them to sell to the best advantage they couldâeight rugs were sold amongst the clerks at the broker's valuation of Â£8 eachâwe advanced Â£15 on them.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. After the receiving order I called on the Ransomesâboth the Ransomes were outâArthur Ransome called upon me subsequently at my officeâI knew they had failed and spoke to him about the certificates of values upon which we had lent money, and generallyâhe gave some explanation and I said, "I shall prove againstâyour firm's estate," or words to that effectâI held them liable as having but their names to the values of these goodsâwe did prove for the full amountâthe statement at the Mansion House that Ransomes' first deposit was on June 12th, 1900, and that from May 17th the goods were certified by Thomas and Short, that Ransomes certified some of the goods previously certified by Thomas and Short, and that they adopted the valuations on the dock warrants or documents of title is correctâwhen we made inquiries at Smith's wharf we held warrants for the goods.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. The loans in respect of goods certified by Thomas and Short were paid offâShort told me that he had seen the goods and valued them, and I believed himâI am not quite sure that he said that he had seen the goods, but he satisfied me that he had valued them.

WILLIAM SINCLAIR . I am cashier to Arbuthnot, Latham, and Co., merchant bankers, 33, Great St. Helen'sâin November, 1900,1 saw Short in reference to making advances on deposits of warrants for goods being acceptancesâon November 20th he told me that his capital was Â£1,000âby Exhibit 2281 agreed to advance up to 75 or 80 per cent, of the invoice value of the goods at 1 per cent, commission on four months' draftsâExhibit 229 was written after a conversation with Short to put on record his statement that the capital put in his firm was Â£10,000âin Exhibit 230 we agree to advance up to Â£3,000 against goodsâExhibit 231 is the memorandum form for the advancesâin pursuance of these arrangements we advanced from time to time by way of acceptances about Â£4,000 against deposits of warrantsâat the time of the failure the three contracts were outstanding, referred to in Exhibits 232-3-4 and 235 is a summary of those contracts, showing loans against those three contracts amounting to Â£3,754, and the values put upon the goods as Â£5,728âalso the amount we received for the goods, Â£1,209âthe difference between the amount realised and the values placed upon the goods by Thomas and Short being Â£4,519âthe difference between outstanding loans by us of Â£3,754 at the time of the failure and the gross price realized of Â£1,209 is Â£2,545, which represents our loss on the three contractsâon August 2nd, 1901, the value placed on goods was Â£1,382â25 per cent, was deductedâthat gives Â£1,037 as the value less the marginâthe acceptance in respect of that contract was Â£1,007âat the time of the acceptances I believed that the values given were the market values of the goods depositedâafter the failure of Thomas and Shortwe had the goods in our hands valued, after which I wrote the letter Exhibit 236 to Thomas and Short, asking for an explanation of the discrepancies between their valuations and those of our brokersâthe letter, Exhibit 237, of December 5th, 1901, which is signed by Thomas and Short, states that the valuation was made by Rogers Brothers, who were the leading brokers for valuing Thibet crosses and things of that kind, and that if there was any over-valuation it did not originate with themâI had no further communication from Thomas and ShortâI never heard from Rogers Brothersâthe brokers we employed to value were Messrs. Goddard.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. I did receive Thomas and Short's letter of January 13th, 1902, which states that they had twice written to Rogers Brothers for an explanation of their valuations, but had not received any replyâI did not know when I made the advance that Rogers Brothers were the brokers of Shortâthe goods were sold after the failureâno reserve was fixed upon the sale.

SAMUEL PARKER SMITH . I am one of the firm of W. M. Smith and Sons, wharfingers, of Cross Lane, St. Dunstan'sâwe have had dealings with Rogers Brothers for some time, and have lent them money against warrants for certified values of goods on loan contracts referred to in Exhibits 121

to 123âat the time of their failure the outstanding loans were Â£1,697, the valuation of goods for them was Â£2,267, the price realised was Â£938 10s. 7d., the difference between Rogers Brothers' valuation and the amount realised was Â£1,328 9s. 5d., and the amount of our actual loss was Â£758 9s. 5d.âin Exhibit 21 is an item of 24,500 partridge canesâat the time of the failure we found that two bales of 2,500 canes were not at our warehouse, although we had the warrantsâin Exhibit 122 another item of 3.900 canes had all been deliveredâthe 5,000 black bamboo canes in Exhibit 122, valued at Â£83, realised net Â£5 12s. 8d., and gross Â£6 10s.âprior to the failure 6,000 were delivered from the warehouse on warrants which we gave up on application, for value lodged without any application to us for the warrantsâI believed the valuations in the loan contracts were correctâI had no experience of the value of canesâof the ginger contracts I had some knowledge, because we handle those goodsâlooking through those contracts and comparing the valuations with the prices realised I found them fairly correctâI have allowed goods to be withdrawn from the warehouse without the production of warrants under circumstances of special urgency, for instance after a public sale, when buyers come asking for delivery; but then I received from Rogers Brothers the declared value of the goods in cash, with two exceptionsâI have prepared a schedule showing the instances where I have delivered goods in response to Rogers Brothers' delivery orders without the production of warrantsâthe 238, in Exhibit 180, crosses in the loan contract of September 30th on a deposit of Â£52 were removed on September. 16th and 23rd, or prior to the loan contract of September 30thâthe 3,000 hair skins were removed on September 6th on a deposit of Â£75âone case of bristles was removed on October 5th on a deposit of Â£22, Exhibit 192âtwo cases of bristles were removed on October 14th, on Â£14 being depositedâ1,687 Thibet skins were removed on September 3rd and 13th, the loan contract being September 20th, on a deposit of Â£446â400 moufflon skins included in the contract of October 4th with Messrs. Baring's, Exhibit 58, were removed on August 30th on a deposit of Â£80âin each case we were handed chequesâthere are other instances.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE., We were paid a deposit except in the instance of two cases of bristles, when we were promised the warrant but did not get it nor the depositâthat was immediately before the failureâRogers Brothers' account has been a good accountâwe have done a good deal of business with them, practically from the, time they have been established, close on fourteen or fifteen years, when the firm was "E. B. Rogers," before they were Rogers Brothersâhaving advanced money on the goods (Exhibits 121-3) I could not possibly account for the difference on the amount realisedâI am not an expert in values, I take them from the loan contractsâI rely upon them as being correctâwhen I am called upon to give a value to a customer I ask the merchant to declare the value.

HERBERT HENRY BARBER . I am one of the firm of Edward Barber and Son, colonial brokers, 9, Mincing LaneâI have been in the business twenty-three or twenty-four yearsâas brokers we sell China produce, including furs, bristles, and horsehairâI am thoroughly acquainted with the value of those articles, and am employed to value them, in this case

by bankersâI have made some schedules and corrected some of the figures in the schedules already put inâas amended they are accurateâwith regard to 35A and all subsequent schedules, I valued all the goods except the mats and the carpetsâI subsequently sold all the goods except the canes and the carpetsâmy schedules set out my valuations and the prices realised, net and grossâwe were told to do the best we could in the interest of the holders of the goods, which we didâwe delayed the sale of several articles from time to time in order to realise their fair valuesâthe prices averaged the prices in our valuationsâin some instances they fetched more, in some lessâour valuation being Â£13,000, the sale prices were Â£14,000, as against the Â£45,000 valuation put upon them in the contractsâExhibits 59 and 59A, the schedule to 59 relate to warrants held by Baring Brothers and Company, Limitedâour valuation there is Â£4,175, the sale prices Â£4,25.8, as against Rogers Brothers' valuation of Â£14,000 oddâin Exhibits 87 and 87A our valuation is Â£3,022, the sale price Â£3,200, as against Rogers Brothers' valuations of Â£7,000 in round figuresâin No. 123, the goods deposited with Mr. Smith, the sale price is Â£938, as against Rogers Brothers' valuation of Â£2,267âin Exhibit 152a, those are Baring Brothers' warrants on goods deposited by Thomas and Short, my valuation is Â£1,300, the sale price Â£1,600, as against Rogers Brothers' Â£3,172âin No. 183 are the goods held by warrants held by Frith, Sands and Company, on loan contracts with Rogers Brothers, and my valuation is Â£6,300, the sale price Â£6,600, as against Rogers Brothers' price of Â£17,900; No. 193, Frith Sands with Thomas and Short, my valuation Â£2,381, realised Â£2,288, as against Thomas and Short's valuation of Â£4,552âas regards canes and carpets we suggested it would be more to the interest of the holders of the documents for Eastwood and Holt to deal with those goodsâthat firm made returns to usâeverything went through our books, and their figures are included in those I have givenâSchedule 235 relates to Arbuthnot's contract with Thomas and Shortâmy gross price realised was Â£1,209, as against Thomas and Short's valuation of Â£5,728âthe sixty-four carpets in Exhibit 43, valued at Â£510, sold for Â£146âthe 564 large Thibet crosses in Exhibit 42, which are skins laid out with a Maltese cross, and which are China goods, are valued in the loan contract at Â£1,269, and were sold, for Â£317âExhibit 44 relates to twenty-eight Thibet coats, which were valued at Â£126, and sold for Â£15âExhibit 43, 232 crosses and 204 lambs' crosses, were valued at Â£872 and sold for Â£116âContract 44 is 100 pieced Thibet crosses, valued at Â£250, and sold for Â£77âin Exhibit 180, 100 sheep coats, put in at Â£4 each, or Â£400, were sold by me for Â£31âcontract 58 is for 1,670 moufflon skins, put in at Â£1.490, and sold for Â£213âthen according to the contract certified by Ransome and Company, 200 lambs' crosses are put in at Â£350, sold for Â£97âin Contract 85, 1,687 lambs' skins, put in at Â£1,391, sold for Â£485 0s. 3d.âExhibit 234 includes 647 Thibet crosses, put in at Â£1,455, and sold for Â£32 4s.âI valued those at 2s. eachâthat would work out to about Â£60âit is difficult to value those because they were pieced and oldâthey should have been described in the contract as "pieced"âthey are described as "Thibet crosses"âthose are Rogers Brothers' goods, and Short's depositing.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Ninety per cent, were sold by auctionâwe sold the furs last January in "a public saleâSands and Company sold the sable robes through another brokerâI valued them at Â£23, and they sold for Â£20âanother broker put some up for public sale which sold for Â£24 or Â£25âSands and Company advanced money on the long robed dog skinsâI was consulted as to selling some of the skins, privately, in October and November, and I said, "No, people might buy foxes' skins privately," but it was better to keep these till JanuaryâFrith Sands or Thorpe and Company valued them at 4s. or 4s. 3d.âI had valued them at the sameâthey were not sold without reserve in JanuaryâI have sold identical goods at 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., and in a January sale at 5s. or 6s. up to 9s. or 10s. according to the demandâthey would not fetch in the March sales 14s. or 15s.âbristles declined towards the end of the year, and goods held for three months fetched 5d. to 5 1/2d.âin November the sale of horsehair did not declineâno doubt if a bankruptcy was surmised in the trade the goods would have to be got rid of by advertisement without reserve, with few exceptionsâwe did not have a special catalogueâwe issued circulars.

Gross-examined byMR. WARREN. Thibet crosses are now sold at 41s., the price has been 45s.âI have known Rogers Brothers as a well known firm, and have been friendly with themâI knew they had direct business with the East.

FRANK BRUCE EASTWOOD . I am one of the firm of Eastwood and Holt, colonial brokers, at Dunster House, Mincing Laneâwe have special knowledge of carpets and canes, myself more particularly of carpetsâour firm sell both largelyâwe were asked by Messrs. Barber to undertake the disposal of those two classes of goods, and took steps to dispose of them, the canes gradually, so as not to disturb the market prices, in two monthsâwe got as good prices as we could for the canes for Messrs. Barberâsome of the Oriental carpets we sold privately, and some at a special sale in Januaryâthat was an unprecedented sale, people coming from all over England and the Continent to buy, and the prices were full market pricesâthe prices were remitted to Mr. Barber, and included by him in his schedule.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. My partner, Mr. Holt, attended to the canes, as I have more knowledge of the carpetsâabout a third were sold privatelyâthis is the original catalogueâthe carpets are described as chiefly out of bankrupt's stockâwe took advantage of that sale to include one or two other goodsâthey were sold by order in the liquidationâit was hardly a forced saleâsome are put in at reserved prices to prevent sacrificeâit was advisable to sell some without reserveâif they had been kept for a private sale they would not have reached so good a priceâthe Turkestan moss carpet, valued at Â£5 to Â£6, fetched Â£15âanother carpet, valued at Â£20 to Â£25, was sold for Â£48; others valued at 90s. to Â£5, fetched Â£22 10s.âsome were sold to Kevorkian, a carpet dealer who knows their valueâthe antique Persian carpet sold for Â£12 15s.âantique carpets have not the same value as other carpets, and vary from Â£5 to Â£50âit is impossible to fix the value of antique specimensâthis sale was exceptionally good.

ARTHUR HOLT . I am one of the firm of Eastwood and HoltâI under

took the sale of the canes for Messrs. Barber, and realised the best prices I could according to my judgment.

Cross-examined byMR. ELLIOTT. Some canes were sold on November 28th at about 3 1/4d. eachâI valued the partridge canes at 2 1/2d. a caneâI sold the 500 canes, in lot 47 in the catalogue, at 4 3/4d. each to an outside buyerâthe 4,000 partridge canes I valued at 2 1/4d. eachâI sold them a 2 1/4d.âthe 500 partridge canes, at 70 lbs. per 100 canes, I valued at 3d. per cane, and sold them at 5d. a stick out of a quantity that we were selling.

H. I. BEVAN (Re-examined.) Our commission in the four years on Rogers Brothers' loan was Â£1,234, and on Thomas and Short's loan about Â£150 for two yearsâthe valuation at Smith's wharf put in with us was Â£2,175, we advanced Â£1,892, we recovered Â£823, therefore we were Â£1,352 outâThomas and Short had three loans, not two only, therefore Â£60 or Â£70 ought to be deducted from the amount put for Messrs. Rogers.

JOHN BRETT (Cross-examined bySIR J. LEESE). The carpets left on our hands were sold through a broker to Kevorkian, to whom they had belongedâI sold on the valuation of another broker, Mr. Miller, six carpets at Â£15âthat was a very small proportion of the wholeâKevorkian wanted to get them, they were really his goods.

EGERTON SPENCER GREY (Re-examined.) I have prepared a schedule from the books and invoices of Rogers Brothers on the contracts exhibited in this caseâI have also traced the prices paid by Rogers Brothersâwith regard to the warrants deposited with the London and Westminster Bank in the column headed "actual value" is Â£646 17s. 7d., in the column headed "Value in schedule to loan contracts" the figure is Â£3,027âMr. Barber's total realisation is Â£671âthe crosess described in Rogers Brothers' books as "pieced Thibet crosses" are described in the "loan contracts" as "Thibet crosses" in the same way goods are differently described in the books or invoices to what they are in the loan contracts, as shown in my scheduleâsmall lambs' skin crosses are described as lamb skin crossesâthe goods in Frith Sands' contract were acquired six days before they were put into the London and Westminster BankâRogers Brothers deposited with the London and Westminster Bank shipping goods at the declared value of 18s. each, the declared value at Frith Sands' being on September 30th Â£4 each, the actual value being 9s. 10d. eachâ118 of the 670 moufflon skins were deposited for Rogers Brothers by E. M. Cohen for Â£400 on June 3rd, 1901, with Frith Sands and Co., and the dealer got delivery from Smith's wharf on the declared value of Â£400âon October 4th, 1901, goods put in with Baring Brothers at a declared value of Â£419 were sold for Â£1,400âthe remainder were sold at Â£213âthe actual value of 1,687 lambs' skin crosses was Â£441âthose skins were sold at auction by Rogers Brothers on September 11th, 1901âthey were put in at Brown Shipley's on September 20th; not only that, but delivery had been obtained from the wharfingers of these goods at the purchase price of Â£441, so that they were not at Smith's wharf when the warrants were depositedâthe 647 Thibet crosses were put in at Arbuthnot, Latham and Co.'s on September 27th by Thomas and Short at the declared value of Â£1,455, and were put up by Rogers Brothers to public auction and sold to H. Jackson and A. J. HadlerâExhibit 194 shows

the amounts deposited with Smith as wharfinger at his wharfâI have also summarised the losses on loan contracts with the London and Westminster Bank, Smith's, Baring's, Brown and Shipley, Frith Sands and Co., and Arbuthnot's, and the total shown in that schedule is Â£44,872, whereas the total valuation of goods put in the loan contracts is Â£100,352âthe total realisation was Â£34,576, the actual value being about one-third of the declared value.

Cross-examined byMR. WARREN. It happened in many cases that Shorts had the warrants when there was a saleâif all the bills were met the balance would be in favour of Rogers BrothersâShort in his public examination denied having discussed the bills with any of the other defendantsâI have never said that I was continually pressing Short to confess that the sale with regard to the Atkins transaction never took placeâhe denied that there had been any fictitious transferâI suggested to him that he belonged to a combination, which he deniedâhe may have said that he never looked upon the hop business as being bad till August, 1901.

Cross-examined byMR. GRAIN. I said at the Mansion House that I found no trace of concealment by the RansomesâI say the same to-day.

JOHN WILSON SMITH . I am the London manager of the Norwich Union Insurance Company at 71, King William StreetâFrancis Thompson, who was employed by Rogers Brothers, was the agent through whom the loan was introduced on behalf of Edward Beauchamp Rogers, Exhibit 364, on his personal securityâI produce the proposal form in which he has answered questions stating his income at Â£1,200 to Â£1,500 per annum, that he had never been a bankrupt, nor insolvent, nor compounded with his creditors, and giving the name of his surety as Ransome Wallis, and his bankers as Martin's Bank, Lombard Street, and the London and South-Western Bank at Fenchurch Street; Algernon Wallis, bankers Martin's and the London and Westminster Bank, Forest Gate; John Rolls Short, bankers Glyn Mills; and Richard Newton, bankers Mercantile Bank, Manchesterâone condition is that three responsible sureties should secure the repayment of principal and interest, and under the heading of "General Remarks" is, "The directors as a general rule will not accept as surety any person who is a borrower, nor will they lend money to a person who is also a surety"âthe other sureties were Sheppard James Ransome, bankers London and Westminster, Lothbury; private account London and County, Wandsworth; and Arthur Ransome, of the same firm, and bankers London and Westminster, Lothburyâthe proposal form, Exhibit 364, is signed by B. Rogers and dated February 4th, 1901âthe particulars were partly verbal and partly writtenâthe agreement, Exhibit 365. was executed which provided for a loan of Â£12,000 to Edward Rogers, and was executed by all the defendants in my presence on February 18th, 1901âthis is the cheque produced, which is for Â£10,580 17s. 1d., the amount less certain chargesâthat is endorsed by E. Rogersâit is drawn by George Moors Chamberlin, one of the directors of the Norwich Union Insurance Societyâbefore the advance, inquiries were made as to the solvency and financial position of the defendants, and the replies were satisfactoryâNewton's, statement that I had examined the books of Rogers Brothers is not trueâ

on February 26th, 1901, I read a similar proposal, Exhibit 367, from Arthur James Ransome's son, Mr. Bernard Ransome, for Â£5,000, the three sureties being Arthur James Ransome, Sheppard James Ransome, and William Hodson, with another name, Kevorkianâwe did not make that advance, as we considered the defendants were sufficiently indebted.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I said before the Magistrate that our inquiries were directed to the point of the ability of the borrowers' sureties to repay the loanâwe would not have lent the money without those inquiries resulting satisfactorily.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. The premiums were Â£1,100 to Â£1,200 a year, the amount being thus repaid in a period of ten yearsâthe interest was 6 per cent, reducible to 5 per cent, on prompt paymentsâwe made inquiries of the bankers quite independently of the parties to the deed.

Cross-examined byMR. KERSHAW I believe we had more than one interview with Newtonâthe conversation was as to his being able to find cover as a means of insuring his liability.

Re-examined. We inquired if the parties to the deed were solvent personsâthe replies were favourable, and I reported accordingly to our head officeâthe document was read in the presence of all the defendants and myselfâby Mr. Beck, and some questions were asked and were explained at the time.

GEORGE MOORE CHAMBERLIN . I am a director of the Norwich Union Insurance Society, also a member of the Finance Committee of that corporationâthe loan of Â£12,000 to Edward Beauchamp Rogers came before me in both capacities; also the reports the result of inquiries of various bankers of the borrower and his suretiesâhaving seen those the other members of the Committee, the directors and myself, discussed the matter, and agreed to make the loanâI was one of the directors who signed the cheque by means of which the sum was advancedâthe result of the inquiries appeared to be that the borrower and his sureties were solvent persons and able to meet the requirements.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. The results were shown to me in Norwich by the general manager of the Societyâmost of the reports were in writingâinquiries were made through the defendants' friends, the banks, inquiry offices, and trade protection associationsâStubbs were also employedâthat was quite independent of any reference by the principal and his suretiesâif those independent inquiries had not been satisfactory we should not have entered into the business.

Cross-examined byMR. PAGE. Being associated with the President of the United Kingdom Trade Society, I naturally applied to them.

Re-examined. I believe that the banking accounts of the various persons represented genuine trade transactionsâI have the reports from the bankers, and can produce them if required.

WILLIAM ROSS NICHOLL . I am Resident Inspector at Stockton for the Yorkshire Insurance Companyâin June, 1901, I was inspector of the same company in London at 2. Bank Buildings, E.C.âI knew the defendants Wallis through doing fire insurance business for themâRansome Wallis made a verbal proposal to me for a loan to be made by our Company to his

son Charles Edward, aged 24âwe discussed the matterâthen I received this letter, Exhibit 372, proposing to insure the son's life for Â£3,000 and to take a loan of Â£2,000 guaranteed by four persons. Norman Rogers, formerly partner in the firm of Rogers Brothers, banking at the London and Western Bank and Lloyds Bank; Algernon Wallis, banking at the London and South Western Bank, and for thirty years at Lloyds Bank, and proprietor of Wallis, Sons and Co.; Sheppard Ransome, banking at the London and County Bank, and senior partner of S. and E. Ransome, South American merchants; and Ransome Wallis, banking at the London and Westminster Bank; and Barnard Wallis, salaried representative of Wallis, Sons and Co., banking at the London and Provincial Bank, Sideup, and giving references, including Thomas and Short, Crosby Square, Great St. Helen'sâI wrote to the references and made personal inquiries, which were satisfactoryâI conversed with Short as to Algernon Wallisâhis opinion was perfectly favourable; there was not a discordant note in his remarksâhe spoke well of the Wallises, and Algernon in particularâm question was, "Do you believe Messrs. Wallis are thoroughly sound men who will carry out their engagements," and his remark was, as far as I an remember, to this effect, "You may be sure anything that they undertake they see their way to carry through"âI also read letter, Exhibit 374, signed Thomas Short and A. Howard Short, of July 8th, addressed to the Company to the effect that while they had no special knowledge of their financial standing, Wallis and Co. had met their obligations promptlyâthe loan was to be Â£2,000âour Company required that the firms and not merely the individual members should be responsibleâI receives the proposal form, Exhibit 375, and dated August 25th, in which the references to the defendants Rogers Brothers, Wallis, Sons and Co., the two Ransomes individually and as firms as sureties, and their bankers are givenâthat is signed by Ransome Wallisâafter the receipt of Exhibit 377 from Wallis, Sons and Co. asking for the cheque, I reported the result of the inquiries to my head office.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Edward Rogers came in later, when we required the signature of the firmâI made personal inquiriesâafter Wallis, Sons and Co.'s failure on October 11th, 1901, I saw Edward RogersâI explained the position of the firm and that the money was recoverable from the suretiesâhe expressed surpriseâhe said it was a terrible business for him and would cost him at least Â£20,000, and added, "I have helped men all my life and this is my rewardâhe appeared to me very much upset.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. Ransome Wallis told me he was retiring from businessâhe said he wanted his son to bring Â£2,000 into the firmâwe required references of the principals as well as of the suretiesâone reference of Charles E. Wallis is Albert Wilson, M.D., 1, Queen Street, Cheapside, and Woodford, Essexâboth references were of high position, so far as I knowâthe references of Ransome Wallis were Mr. Voake, the Chairman of Robinson and Co., Limited, and Mr. D. C. Appley, of Reigate, and the senior partner in Carson and Co., and John Dotteridge, all gentlemen of high standing as for as I know.

Cross-examined byMR. WALLACE. Short's references were also to well-known and respectable people.

Cross-examined byMR. DISTURNAL. I did not personally see either of the Ransomes till after the collapse of Wallis, Sons and Co., when it appeared that the position of affairs was quite unexpected by themâthat as the impression they gave me at the interview.

WILLIAM HAMERTON JALLAND . I am a surgeon, practising at St. Leonard's House, York, and one of the directors of the Yorkshire Insurance Companyâthe application for this loan of Â£2,000 came before me in my capacity as Directorâinquiries were made into the solvency of the borrower and of the sureties as well as the references from their bankersâall were satisfactoryâafterwards the cheque, No. 442, for Â£1,796 7s. 6d. was drawn and signed by myself, as one of the directors on September 28th, 1901âthe insurance was to be on the life of C. E. Ransomeâat that time I believed the borrower and his sureties each and all of them were able to meet the requirements of the loan.

Cross-examined bySIR. JOSEPH LEESE.âWe made private inquiries as well as to the bankersâthat is the usual customâwithout those private inquiries being satisfactory we should not have lent the money.

Cross-examined byMR. DICKENS. I mean that we concluded from our inquiries that both the borrower and the sureties were in a position to repay the moneyâI mean the sureties when combined.

Cross-examined byMR. DISTURNAL. The Ransomes said they could not give us a balance sheet, and they could not give us the full details we wantedâwe were not as satisfied with them as with the others, because the information was not sufficient.

Re-examined. The answers to our private inquiries were satisfactoryâwe should not have advanced the loan if they had not been.

FREDERICK HOLMES (City Police-Inspector.) I arrested the defendant Edward Beachamp RogersâI was present when the other defendants were chargedâI found Exhibit 567 on Ransome Wallisâ[A letter of September 3rd, 1899, from Martin's Bank to Wallis, Sons and Co., returning a bill for Â£90 0s. 4d., the Bank not considering that kind of bill to be trade bills.]âI was instructed on the Saturday to execute the warrants at once.

JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT (Re-examined). I produce a schedule which I have prepared of acceptances in a statement of the handwritings of the accused appearing on them and in whose possession the documents were foundâit is correct.

Edward Beachamp Rogers, in his defence on oath, said that he believed he firm was solvent at the time he accepted bills to assist the other defendants and obtained the loan from the Norwich Union; that, as he had other property, he believed the firm would meet their liabilities; that he was absent for his holidays in Auqust, 1901, and part of September, and was therefore not responsible for what took place in his absence; that he believed the balance sheet prepared by Thompson represented he firm's position at the time; that pressure of business compelled him to leave the details of the work to Thompson, Terry, and other clerks, and that he signed documents relying

upon them; that he accepted the figures in the valuations, believing them to be correct, but that the forced sales considerably reduced the proceeds; and that he had no intention to defraud anybody.

Edward Norman Everard Rogers, in his defence on oath, said that he was taking his summer holiday in June and part of July, when he was not responsible for what took place; he denied all the charges, and stated that he acted throughout with a view of carrying the transactions through successfully and in an honourable manner; and that he had no intention to defraud or to assist in any fraud.

Ransome Wallis, in his defence on oath, stated that his annual turnover having been a quarter of a million with a profit of Â£7,000 divisible between the partners he believed the position of his firm was absolutely sound when the transactions referred to in the evidence were carried through, and that there never was any intention to defraud.

Algernon Wallis, in his defence on oath, confirmed his brother's statement, denied any intention to defraud, and stated that he had not made any representation in respect of more than one bill.

Sheppard James Ransome, in his defence on oath, denied any intention to defraud, and stated that, the firm having been prosperous, he refrained from retiring for some time, and even when he retired he invested further sums in it, believing those would assist to put it again on a sound basis.

Arthur James Ransome, in his defence on oath, supported his brother's statement, and denied any intention to defraud.

Joseph John Rolls Short, in his defence an oath, said he believed the bills drawn were of the value specified by Messrs. Rogers; he denied making any fraudulent representation, or that at the time of the failure he owed anything in respect of his private affairs.

Richard Martland Newton, in his defence on oath, stated that down to October last he had a capital of Â£4,000; that he had conducted all his business in a straightforward and honourable manner, and as he had not the least idea that he had done anything fraudulent, he wished to complain of the injustice he had suffered on the part of the prosecution upon a charge which had been dismissed by the Magistrate.

The prisoners all received excellent characters, both personally and with regard to their uprightness and integrity in business.

JOHN BRETT re-examined by theCOURT. The balance sheet was handed to me by E. B. Rogers at my office in June, 1900âif I have stated otherwise that is incorrectâmy directors had asked me, in view of the large amount running, to get it.

The prisoners were again indicted for conspiracy to and obtaining credit and for incurring liabilities, with intent to defraud.

No evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

Sentence on E. B. ROGERS and J. J. R. SHORTâ Nine months' imprisonment each in the Second Division.

NEW COURTâSaturday, November 22nd, 1902.

45. VALENTINE LACEY COOMBES was brought up for judgment before the Recorder on his recognisances, entered into at this Court on October 25th, 1901 (See Vol. cxxxiv., page 923). Six months' imprisonment in the second division.

ESSEX CASES.

Before A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.

46. THOMAS HENRY HURD (19) and JOHN SMITH (19) , Stealing a bicycle, the property of William George Macdonald.

MR. FULTONProsecuted, andMR. KEITH FRITHDefended Smith.

WILLIAM GEORGE MACDONALD . I am a collector, of 160, Francis Road, Leytonâthe bicycle produced is mineâon October 22nd, I went into an estate office in High Road, Leyton, leaving it outsideâI was only gone a minute or two, and when I returned it was goneâabout a week or fortnight afterwards I saw it at Mr. Parry's shop, a bicycle dealer of Bethnal GreenâI value it at Â£6 10s.âI do not know either of the prisoners.

Cross-examined by Hurd. I cannot identify you as stealing it.

JOSEPH PARRY . I am a cycle dealer of 103, Cambridge Road, Bethnal GreenâI have known Smith as a customer for twelve monthsâon October 24th, the two prisoners brought this bicycle to me, and asked me to buy it; I said I would if they had the receipt; Hurd said that he had lost it, so I said I would buy it if Hurd would let one of my men go to his house to see where he livedâhe did so, and the address being correct, I agreed to buy it for 45s.âI paid Hurd 25s. at the time, and the other Â£1 the next morningâI gave Smith 2s. for the introductionâHurd said he had had the machine seven months.

Cross-examined by Hurd. You did not say that a man had given it to you to sellâthe address you gave me was correctâI did not know you.

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. I knew Smith, but did not know his addressâI do not know the public-house that he frequentsâhe waited in my shop while the enquiry was being made about HurdâI thought it was an honest transactionâSmith has often had machines from me on hire, and has always returned themâit is not uncommon for anyone of introduce a seller of a machine as his friendâthere was nothing in Smith's conduct to arouse any suspicion.

ALBERT HANDLEY (Detective Sergeant J.) On November 2nd, about 1 a.m., I saw Hurd in Treadway Street, Hackney RoadâI said, "Hurd, you know me; "he said, "Yes; "I said, "I shall arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with another man, not in custody, for stealing and receiving a bicycle on October 22nd, at High Road, Leyton; "he said, "A bicycle; "I said, "Yes;" he said, "You know that is not my game; I never had a bicycle in my life, and cannot ride one"âhe was taken to the station, where Parry at once identified him from fourteen other menâhe then said "Yes, that is right, I did sell him a bicycle, but you have got to prove your case against me, the bicycle I sold to Parry belonged to the man that was with me at the time I sold it"âI asked him who his mate was, and he said,

"You find out, you know him as well as you know me, but you will not get anything out of me"âas I was conveying him to the station, Smith; came up and spoke to him.

Cross-examined by Hurd. I have seen you riding a bicycle on several occasions in Bethnal Green RoadâI made my note in your presenceâI did not have a search warrant to search your place.

Re-examined. I had good reasons for searching Hurd's place, as I had information that he was trying to dispose of another bicycle worth Â£10.

PERCY SAVAGE (Detective J.) I was with Detective Handley when Hurd was arrestedâthe same day at 3.30 p.m., I saw Smith on the platform at Bethnal Green JunctionâI said, "You know me;" he said, "Yes;"I said "I am going to arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with Hurd in stealing a bicycle from Leyton on the 22nd of last month; "he said, "I do not know anything about a bicycle; I do not work with Hurd"âhe was conveyed to Bethnal Green station, put up for identification with nine other men, and at once identified by Parryâhe then said, "It is no use telling lies about it, I was with Hurd"âI took him to Leyton Station, and in the train he said, "I only went with Hurd to sell the bicycle; I know he has had it some time, and that he bought it down the Lane"âwhen charged he said, "Now you cannot prove I stole it; no one saw me take it away."

Cross-examined byMR. FRITH. When Hurd was in custody, Smith came up and spoke to him.

Cross-examined by Hurd. I cannot produce anyone who saw you take the machine.

JOSEPH PARRY (Re-examined). When purchasing the machine I asked Smith to lend me 10s. to complete the deal, as I had not sufficient money at the time, but he could not, and I paid Hurd 25s. then, and Â£1 the next morning.

Hurd, in his defence, said that he was in a public house with Smith, when a man asked him if he could sell a bicycle; that he asked Smith if he knew of anyone; that Smith suggested Mr. Parry; that they took the bicycle to him and sold it, and gave the money to the man in the public-house.

Smith, in his defence on oath, said that he took Hurd to Parry to introduce him; that he received 2s. from Parry for the introduction; that he had nothing whatever to do with selling the bicycle, and received none of the proceeds.

GUILTY .

HURD thenPLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at Guildhall, Westminster, on April 13th, 1901, in the name of James Robinson, and six other convictions were proved against him.

SMITH thenPLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at Maidstone, on October 17th, 1901, and three other convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour each.

47. JOHN DOWNHAM (16) ,' Carnally knowing Kate Hack, a girl, above thirteen and under sixteen years of age.

MR. STEWARTProsecuted, andMR. WARBURTONDefended.

The Jury, being unable to agree, and the Prosecution intimating that no further proceedings would be taken, the Prisoner was discharged on his own recognisances.

48. ROBERT BARRON (20) and JAMES WALKER (20) , Robbery with violence on Agostinio Da Costa Lepz, and stealing from him 15s., his money.

BARRON PLEADED GUILTY to simple robbery.

MR. NICHOLSONProsecuted.

AGOSTINIO DA COSTA LEPZ (Interpreted.) On October 14th, about 2.30 p.m., I went into a baker's shop in the Victoria Dock Road to buy some breadâwhen I came out I was assaulted by the two prisonersâWalker caught hold of my two wrists from behind, and Barron took my purse out of my pocket, which contained a half sovereign and two half-crownsâon the 17th, I went to the police station and picked out BarronâI cannot identify Walker, as I did not see him; he was behind me.

Cross-examined by Walker. At Stratford Police Court, I did say that Barron took my purseâI did not say you put your arms round my neck, but like this (Describing).

ROSE SHAW . I keep a baker's shop in the Victoria Dock Roadâon October 14th, about 2.45 p.m., I saw the two prisoners and the prosecutor outside my shopâWalker was holding the prosecutor's hands into his neck, and Barron was rifling his pocketsâthe prisoners then made off, followed by the prosecutorâI know both prisoners well by sightâon October 17th I went to the police station, and identified them from ten or twelve other men.

Cross-examined by Walker. I did not say at the police court that you had your arms round the prosecutor's neckâwhen you made off I heard the prosecutor shoutâthere is a policeman on point duty at the corner of the street about 20 or 30 yards away, but you did not go in that direction.

Cross-examined by Barron. I saw you put your hand into two of the prosecutor's pockets.

HESTA MONCHAM . I live in Victoria Dock Roadâon October 14th I was standing at my door about 2.30 p.m., and saw the prosecutor and the prisoners strugglingâWalker was holding the prosecutor's hands up to his neck while Barron was searching his pocketsâI have seen the prisoners many times standing at the corner of the streetâI had no difficulty inâidentifying them.

Cross-examined by Walker. You were behind the prosecutor holding his hands up to his neckâI saw your faceâwhen you left go the prosecutor screamed and you ran off into Smith Streetâthere was not any traffic in the street at the time.

Cross-examined by Barron. I cannot say how many pockets you searched, but they were inside pockets, not outside.

----CRONK (573 K.) I was on point duty in Victoria Dock Road at 2.40 p.m. on October 14thâI saw the two prisoners walking towards where the alleged robbery took placeâI received certain information, in consequence of which I went in search of the prisonersâon the 17th I went with P.C. Dunstall to 36, South Norton Street, Canning TownâI saw Barron on the first floor in bedâI said, "Barron, I am going to take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned with another man in a highway robbery on Tuesday afternoon in Victoria Dock Road"âhe said, "No,

not me"âon the way to the station he said, "I know nothing about it"âabout 9 p.m. he was put up with nine other men and identified by the three witnessesâhe was formally charged, and made no reply.

Cross-examined by Walker. The alleged robbery took place about 20 yards from where I wasâI heard no scream; there was a lot of traffic at the time.

JAMES DUNSTALL (546 K.) On October 17th I went with P.C. Cronk to 36, South Norton Road, Canning TownâI saw Walker, and said to him, "I am going to take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned in a highway robbery with violence last Tuesday"âhe made no replyâI conveyed him to the station, where he was placed among nine other men and identified by the two females, but not by the prosecutorâhe was afterwards charged, and made no reply.

Walker, in his defence on oath, said that at the time of the alleged robbery he was at Poplar and did not get home till 6 p.m.; that he was not in Barron's company, and had nothing whatever to do with the robbery.

Barron, in his defence, denied using any violence.

GUILTY .

WALKER thenPLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on May 15th, 1901, in the name of John McAndrew. Five other convictions were proved against himâ Five years' penal servitude. Three previous convictions were proved against BARRONâ Two years' hard labour.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

49. ROBERT ASHFORD (20) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the warehouse of James Ford with intent to steal. ( See next case.)

50. ROBERT ASHFORD (20) and THOMAS WALL (24) , Stealing two bedsteads, two pillows, and other articles, the property of William John Bicheno.

ASHFORD PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. STEWARTProsecuted.

WILLIAM JOHN BICHENO . I am a general dealer, of 26, Martin Road, Custom HouseâI have a shed in a yard at the bottom of Devonshire Roadâon November 5th I had a lot of furniture in the shed, including four chairs, a flock bed, two pillows, a bolster, two or three tables, and several pictures, and a barrow and bedstead outsideâthey were all safe on the night of November 5thâon the 6th, at 8 a.m., I went to the shed and they were all goneâthese (Produced.) are two of the picturesâthe other articles are at the police stationâI identified them at the prisoner's house.

Cross-examined by Wall. I do not put marks on my propertyâI can swear they are mine.

ETHEL ROWLAND . I am 13 years old, and live at 45, Francis Street. Tidal Basinâon November 6th, at 9 a.m., I saw Bob Ashford and the other prisoner outside our door with a barrow and two mattresses, a bed and some chairs.

Cross-examined by Wall. I should know you if you had different clothes

on to what you have nowâyou had the same clothes on then as you have nowâI am quite sure of you.

By theCOURT. They took the furniture upstairs to a back room in our house.

EDWARD FOSTER (76 K.R.) On November 8th I saw the prisoner in Rosker Street, Canning Town, and told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with a man named Ashford in stealing a quantity of furnitureâhe said. "I know nothing at all about it"âat the station, when charged, he said, "Is that all"âhe refused his addressâI subsequently ascertained that he lived at 54, Wilberforce StreetâI went there and found four pictures and a tableâthese are two of the pictures, the others are at the police stationâthe prosecutor identified them.

Cross-examined. I saw the pictures at the police station, and I was told that they were found at your place.

JOHN MERCY (18 K.R.) On November 6th, at 6.45 a.m., I saw the prisoners together in Cleaver Road, Custom House, with a barrow loaded with furnitureâI identified the prisoners at the police station from amongst twelve others on November 8th.

Cross-examined. I am positive of youâI had a good look at your face when you went past me on the 6th.

WALLâ NOT GUILTY . ASHFORD thenPLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of misdemeanour at West Ham Sessions on October 11th, 1901. Four other convictions were proved against himâ Five years' penal servitude.

51. WILLIAM JENNER (31) , Stealing 500 yards of copper wire, the property of the National Telephone Company, Limited.

MR. GODDARDProsecuted.

CHARLES CHAPPLE (468 N.) On October 30th, at 8 p.m., I was on duty in Copper Mill Lane, Walthamstow, and met the prisoner coming from the Marshes, carrying the two coils of copper wire (Produced.)âI asked him what he was doing with the wireâhe said, "I have just brought it from Erith, I am taking it home for the night; I am going to take it back in the morning, as we have no place to store it"âI said, "Is it your wire?"âhe said, "Yes"âI asked him if he was employed by the companyâhe said, "Yes"âI asked him for his authority card and he produced one dated July 31st, 1902âI then took him into custody.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not say to you that I had been watching from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., and that two detectives were also watching, and that if you had been up the pole I and they would have seen you.

Re-examined. I had seen the wires about 4.30 p.m.

WILLIAM JOSEPH NICHOLLS . I am resident night porter of the Tottenham Exchange of the National Telephone Companyâthere is a line of wires running from the Tottenham Exchange to Dalston, which crosses Walthamstow MarshesâI came on duty at 7 p.m. on October 30thâthe wires were then in orderâat about 7.30 p.m. four of the lines got out of order.

FRANCIS MILWARD SMITH . I live at 1, Sash Road, Upper Clapton, and am district engineer for the Northern district of the National Telephone

CompanyâI have examined the wire produced and it is exactly the same as that used by the Companyâon October 8th I found some wire was missing from the wire poles running across Walthamstow Marshes, which was reinstatedâI found them in good order at 3 p.m. on October 30thâI went on October 31st, and cut down some wire which corresponded with that producedâthe total length of the missing wire is about 560 yardsâit is quite possible for a man to climb the poles without climbers; I have seen a man do itâthe value of the wire is about a sovereignâno man has a right to take away spare wire, he has to return it to the stores each nightâthe least quantity sold by the Company is a quarter of a ton.

Cross-examined. I understand you are a leading wiremanâI have seen a man climb a pole without climbers since this case started, and he experienced no difficulty in doing so.

JOHN WILLIAM THOMPSON . I live at 120, Camden Road, Bow, and am a fault-finder in the employ of the Telephone Companyâon October 30th, in the morning, I examined the wires in question and they were in good orderâon October 31st I went there and found eight wires hanging down, and the rest of the wire missingâI have climbed this pole myself without the use of climbersâthere is no difficulty to a man who is used to it.

Cross-examined. A man is sometimes allowed to take home a piece of galvanised wire, but not of copper wireâI have never known it to be given away to anyone else asking for itâI have climbed poles without climbers dozens of times.

Re-examined. I have never known such a quantity as 500 yards to be given away.

WILLIAM STYLES . I live at Manor Road, East Molesey, and am local manager of the Woolwich area of the Southern district of the CompanyâI recognise the prisonerâhe entered their service in my district on June 12th, 1902, and was discharged on September 20th, 1902âall spare wire has to be taken back to the stores.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that the wire in question was what was left from another job, which he had put in a hut in White's brickfield before he was discharged from the Company, and that being hard up on October 30th it came into his mind to go and get it from the brickfield where it had remained since he worked for the Company; that he saw the constable before he got up to him, and had a good opportunity of putting the wire down if he had known it had been stolen, and that if the detectives were there they would have seen him cut down the wire if he had done so, and that he was charged because they knew he was a wireman, and thought it was he who had cut it down.

GUILTY . He then

PLEADED GUILTYto a conviction of felony at the North London Sessions, on February 21 st, 1899, and another conviction was proved against him. Fifteen months' hard labour.

Before Mr. Recorder.

52. HENRY HOLDER (20) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a quantity of gas and water fittings, the property of Warwick William Thompson,

having been convicted of felony at West Ham, on April 18th, 1902. Thirteen other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour. â

(53). THOMAS WATTS (In custody.) (19), to unlawfully obtaining a bicycle from Charles Murray Fleming, by false pretences and with intent to defraud, having been convicted at the Thames Police Court, on July 19th, 1902. Two other convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour, to run concurrently with a former sentence of six months' hard labour passed elsewhere.

KENT CASES.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

54. WILLIAM DUNT (20) , PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Ernest Mathews, with intent to steal, having been convicted of felony at Sevenoaks, on July 21st, 1902. Another conviction was proved against him. Three years' penal servitude and two years' police supervision.

Before Mr. Recorder.

55. FREDERICK GUIVER (18) PLEADED GUILTY to a robbery on Arthur Houghton, and stealing from him a watch and chain, his property, having been convicted of felony at Woolwich, on June 17th, 1901. Three other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.

Before Mr. Justice Bigham.

56. GEORGE LEADBEATER (38) , Feloniously wounding Emily Lewis with intent to murder her. Second Count, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL Prosecuted.

EMILY LEWIS . I live at 17, Watergate Street, DeptfordâI am single and a laundressâI have known the prisoner between four and five years by living with him as his wifeâI ceased to live with him the week before Whitsun on account of his brutality to me he turned me outâI went to live at Mrs. Cromartie's, No. 2, Riley Street, and from there to 17, Water-gate StreetâI saw the prisoner on October 18th at about a quarter to six; he asked me if I should like to go to a playâwe went to the Star Music Hall, and from there to Peckham; we went to a public house and had two glasses of ale; he threw one over me, and I walked out and took the tram to DeptfordâI went home and came out againâI met the prisoner in Watergate Streetâhe drew out an open knife and said, "You and me for it before twelve o'clock to-night"âthat is the knife (Produced)âI said, "Before you do that think of your boys down home; never mind me, go and see to them"âhe quietened down, and I asked him for a halfpenny, which he gave meâI went to the Harp of Erinâand got a glass of aleâhe came in and landed me a blow on the faceâhe accused me of being with Mr. Cromartieâwe were turned out of the public houseâit was 11.30âMr. Cromartie saw me homeâI shut myself in the back roomâthree minutes later the prisoner came in; he had no boots on and a lighted

match in one hand and the open knife in the otherâhe said he meant doing for me and stabbed me on my forehead three timesâI tried to protect myself and got a stab in my neck and the back of my earâI fell down on my left sideâI said, "Oh, George, you have killed me, get me a drop of brandy;" he said, "My girl, I will," and jumped out at the window for itâI crawled upstairs to Mrs. Iiford's roomâwhen he brought the brandy he had a cut on his handâI was taken to Princess Street Police Station, and from there to the infirmaryâI remained there till last Tuesday.

The Prisoner. I had been out drinking with my brother-in-law; I was drunk; all I know is we went out for a walk; I do not know anything about beer being thrown over her; after we went to Peckham I do not know what happened; I did not recollect anything till Sunday morning.

By theCOURT. The prisoner unloads bricks from bargesâthere is not a quieter man when he is sober.

JOHN THOMAS KIDDES . I am landlord of the Harp of Erin, King Street, DeptfordâEmily Lewis was in my house on Saturday, October 18th about 11 p.m.âshe had a glass of aleâthe prisoner rushed into the bar and started using bad language, so I had him put outâhe was perfectly soberâhe called her filthy names and said she had been deceiving him.

The Prisoner. If he says I was sober he is telling a falsehood; I do not even recollect seeing him.

JOHN WILLIAM AMOS . I am a labourer of 17, Watergate Street, Deptfordâat 11.20 on October 18th I saw the prisoner in my back roomâI asked him what business he had there; he said, "All right, Jack"âhe came out at the door with a lighted matchâhe had a knife in his hand or a daggerâhe shut it up and put it in his pocketâhe rushed out of the passageâthat made me suspicious, and I burst open the door of the back roomâI saw Emily Lewis, who was a stranger to me, lying face downwards in a pool of bloodâI went for help, and when I came back she had crawled upstairs under my adopted son's bedâMrs. Cromartie and myself found her there, and put her on the door-step till the constable took her.

By theCOURT. I know the prisoner by sightâI have seen him in the place three or four timesâI believe he is some relation of Mr. Cromartie, but what I cannot sayâI believe he was the worse for liquor, but I cannot say he was drunk.

EMMA CROMARTIE . I am the wife of George Cromartie, of 17, Watergate Street, Deptfordâat the end of August, Emily Lewis came to live at my houseâon October 18th, at about 11.45, I found her in the back room and brought her down into my roomâI saw the prisoner there; he brought a cup with some brandy or whisky in itâI took it out of his hand and said, "Leave my room, you brute"âhe went away, and I did not see him any more until he was at Princess Street StationâI helped the constable lead Emily Lewis to the station, where her wounds were stitched up.

WILLIAM WIGGINS . I am assistant medical superintendent of Greenwich InfirmaryâEmily Lewis was brought to me on October 19th, at 2.30 a.m.; she was very faint from loss of bloodâI found a wound 2 1/2 inches long over her right eye, and eight punctured wounds in her neck, chiefly in the backâthey varied in depth from 1 inch to 2 1/2 inches; one of them reached

as far as the spinal column; the wound over her eye reached down to the scalpâthere was a cut on her left arm and left hand, a contusion over her left eye and a cut on her lipâthe wounds were such as might be caused by the knife producedâshe remained at the infirmary till November 4thâdodo of the wounds of themselves would be fatal, but they were dangerous if either of the wounds in the neck had severed the jugular vein or one of the main arteries she would have lived but a few minutesâthe position of the wounds was dangerous.

FRANK BEVIS (Police Sergeant R.) On October 19th, at 1 a.m., I saw the prisoner at 29, Charles StreetâI said, "I am a police sergeant and shall arrest you for attempting to murder by stabbing Emily Lewis on head, neck, and arms at 17, Watergate Street, at ten o'clock to-night"âhe said, "I caught her with George Cromartie; I meant her murder; I wish the knife was longer so that it would have put her out; I wish I had the chance to do it now"âI produced the knife, and he said, "That is the knife I did it with"âI took him to the stationâhe was afterwards charged, when he said, "Very good, this is what a man will do when he is mad wild"âon being taken from the dock he said, "I meant to kill Cromartie as well"âwhen I arrested him he appeared to be perfectly sober.

Prisoner's defence. "I did not understand the charge when it was read over to me. I did not recollect anything that night. I plead for mercy. I do not know what I did it for. I had no cause for it.

58. EDWIN ROBERT ARTHUR CHADD (58) , Obtaining Â£10 from Barnett Rosenberg by false pretences. Second, Count, being a clerk and servant to the said Barnett Rosenberg, did make certain false entries in a book belonging to the said Barnett Rosenberg.

MR. J. P. GRAIN and MR. P. GRAINProsecuted;MR. MUIR AND Mr.

LEYCESTERDefended.

BARNETT ROSENBERG . I am a registered money lender at 8, Camberwell Green, under the name of LawrenceâMr. Cohen, my father-in-law, provides me with money for the purpose of my businessâthe prisoner entered my service in December, 1901âMr. Cohen engagedâhimâhe had Â£2 per week and 5s. for travelling expenses, and lived on the premises rent freeâhe was also assisted by a boy named Ingramâit was the prisoner's duty to present application forms to be filled up by persons applying for a loan, and to make enquiries into the correctness of the forms to see that the particulars given were trueâhe was also furnished weekly with

a certain sum which he might loan out at his own discretion after enquiry, at the same time, adding the interest to the principal which was calculated at about 40 per cent, per annumâhe was furnished with forms like this: "I promise to pay to Henry Lawrence, or order, the sum of Â£14 for value received by equal consecutive monthly instalments of Â£1 10s., the first instalment to be due and payable on the day of"âit was his duty on obtaining the applicant's signature to hand over the money to the borrowerâhe also had a cash book, journal, ledger and an instalment bookâIngram assisted him in keeping the books, and most of the entries are in Ingram's writingâthe prisoner had to account to me at the end of the week by means of a balance sheet for the transactions in the past days of the week and send me the promissory notes which I retainedâfor a little time before I discovered anything he had not been very regular in sending me the promissory notes weeklyâI communicated with him, and he then sent them weeklyâI then compared them with the ledger, to see how it was goingâhe also received instalments and accounted for them in the balance sheetâeach applicant and borrower has a debit and credit account in the ledgerâon September 27th, when he said he was about to leave, as he intended opening a money lending business at New Cross in conjunction with someone who was financing himâI asked him to stay a few weeks longer until we got someone to take his placeâhe promised to do so, and on the Saturday in the same week I received a letter from himâI did not sec him again until he was arrestedâin consequence of the receipt of that letter I went to my office, but could not find Ingram, and I have not seen him sinceâI went to 284, New Cross Road, the address in the letter, and found the house emptyâthis is the letter, it is in Ingram's writing and is signed "Chadd" "8, Camberwell Green, S.E., September 27th, 1902. Dear Sir.âIt isâwith much regret that I beg to inform you that I have a good opportunity of bettering myself. I therefore beg to give you notice that I wish to resign my position at the above address on October 4th. 1902"âafter, that I examined my books, and interviewed the witnesses Bendon, Holmes, and Starr, as the result of which I consulted my solicitors and took these proceedingsâin the ledger George Bindon is debited with Â£10 as an advance which had been made to him, and I received from the prisoner this promissory note (Produced.) dated September 10th, 1902, purporting to be signed by George Bindonâon the credit side Bindon is credited with having paid one instalment of 6s. on account of that loanâI also find a debit account of Â£10 against Alfred Holmes, of 4, Jesmond Street, Walworth, dated August 12th, 1902, and I received this promissory note. (Produced.) from the prisoner for that amount signed "Alfred Holmes"âhe is also credited with six instalments of 7s. each on August 18th and 26th, and September 1st, 8th, 22nd, and 26thâI also find a debit account of Â£14 against Starr on July 21st, 1902, and two credit entries of two instalments of Â£1 10s. eachâthis (Produced.) is the promissory note I received from the prisoner purporting to be signed by Alfred Starr, dated July 21st, 1902âthe balance sheets I received from the prisoner also contain the three sums I have alluded toâI also find an account

opened in the name of Frank Thornton Barker for Â£14, dated July 21st; he is credited with having paid 30s. on September 5thâthis (produced.) is the promissory note I received from the prisoner, dated July 21st, in respect of that loan, accompanied by a balance sheet, purporting to be signed by Frank Thornton BarkerâI also find a debit account against G. Phillips, of 18, Hollydale Road, Peckham, for Â£7 on July 25th, and he is credited on August 5th with 4s., and eight others of 4s. eachâthis (Produced.) is a promissory note I received from the prisoner, purporting to be signed by George PhillipsâI also find a debit account against Wm. Whiting, of 4, Heaver Road, East Dulwich, for Â£8 8s. on August 8th; he is credited with 5s. on August 19th, 10s. on September 5th, and 15s. on September 22ndâthis (Produced.) is a promissory note I received from the prisoner, accompanied by a balance sheet, purporting to be signed by Wm. Whitingâthese (Produced.) are the six application forms in reference to those six cases which I found in my officeâthe three last-named persons are non-existent.

Cross-examined. The promissory note of Starr is in Ingram's writingâI do not know the signatureâI do not know the writing in the application formâMr. Starr said that the signature was not his, and the signature en the back which I asked him to write has no resemblance to itâI do not know the writing in Holmes' billâthe balance sheet relating to it shows that the prisoner had a balance at the bank of Â£16 2s. 7d., and cash in hand Â£1 16s. 9Â£d.âthe body of Bindon's bill is in Ingram's writingâI do not know the signatureâthe address "Fishmonger's shop" in the application form is in the prisoner's writing, the balance sheet in Bindon's case shows that the prisoner had a balance at the bank of Â£8, and in hand 12 12s. 1 1/2 d., due from him to meâthe account at the bank was kept in the name of B. J. Cohenâthe body of Phillip's bill is in Ingram's writingâI do not know the signatureâI do not know the writing in the application formâthe body of Whiting's bill is in the prisoner's writingâI do not know the signatureâthe balance at the bank in that case was Â£28, and in hand Â£2 14s. 0 1/2d.âthe promissory note is in Ingram's writing; I do not know the signature; I do not know the writing in the application formâI cannot say in whose writing the application forms are: they appear to be in one and the same writing, except the words "Fishmonger's shop" in Bindon's case, and that is in the prisoner's writingâI do not know a man named Faulkner nor his writingâI had heard that Chadd had been an engine driver and was a man of no education and a very bad writerâhe was engaged by Mr. Cohen on my behalfâI had never seen him until after he had begun his workâall cheques for the business were drawn by Mr. CohenâChadd gave notice to Cohenâthe business was not Cohen's, it was mineâCohen merely advanced me the money to carry it on, he took none of the profitsâthe prisoner sent me a balance sheet every week and from that I knew what was in the bank and what was in handâthe office was taken in the joint names of Cohen and myself, and the rent was paid by Cohen's cheques in our two namesâI never told Chadd that he must not be too particular in making inquiries about would-be borrowers, or he would drive business

awayâthe business had certainly increased during the latter part of the time Chadd was with usâhe never told me that he had not time to make all the necessary inquiriesâI suggested to him that he should have assistanceâthat was some considerable time before he leftâthe interest was never over 50 per cent.âit was not the method to ascertain the identity of a would-be borrower, to send a letter to his address and ask him to bring it with him; if Chadd did that, it was wrongâChadd had to call on applicants to inspect their rent books and see that the landlord had not any right to seize their furnitureâI made a mistake at the police court in saying I had had no communication with Chadd after September 29thâI had letter from him on October 4thâMr. Cohen and I asked him to stay on, and he said he was going to start with a new man in a new money-lending business at New Crossâwe never offered to increase his salary if he would stay onâChadd paid Ingram himselfâI live at 43, Grand Parade, Brightonâmy office is at Camberwell Greenâthe bills are made payable at 42, Bedford Hill, Balham, because I wanted to use the Wandsworth County Court for actionsâCamberwell Green would be in the Lambeth County Court Districtâmy brother-in-law, Percy Cohen, carries on a money-lending business at 42, Bedford Hillâhe is about sixteen or seventeen years oldâJudge Emden of the Lambeth County Court would make orders in my favour, but they were for only a penny a month, which was ridiculous.

By theCOURT. I went to the Wandsworth County Court because I liked the sort of justice administered there, better than that administered at Lambethâboth Judges would give mea-judgment if the case was proved, but all that remained was the question of payment by large or small instalmentsâI am not aware that I am committing an offence against the Money lender's Act in making the' bills payable at Bedford Hill instead of at Camberwell Greenâthere is a plate fixed with my name on it at Bedford Hill, but I have never seen itâthe debtors were always told to pay their instalments at Camberwell GreenâI have been a builderâI did not describe myself to the Magistrate as a builderâI registered myself as a money-lender, but as having been a builderâI ceased to be a builder twelve months ago.

Re-examined. Judge Emden made orders for small instalments to all other money-lenders besides myselfâthe balance sheets ought all to correspond with the booksâthey would be made up from the journal and the cash bookâthe instalments which were paid by the six different people from time to time ceased when Chadd leftâthe profits of the business went back into the business, but there has been a defalcation of about Â£400âIngram was engaged and paid by Chaddâwhen Chadd left, Ingram left, and I have not been able to find him.

BARON JACOB COHEN . I live at-Hove, BrightonâI am the prosecutor's father-in-law, and have helped him with various sums in his businessâthe prisoner was engaged as manager and clerk to carry on the business at Camberwell Green by me, on behalf of the prosecutorâthese (Produced.) are all my cheques which I gave to the prosecutorâI kept a separate cheque book for the moneys I gave to Chadd for the business.

Cross-examined. When Chadd had any money in hand he used it for

the business, and when he wanted any more I gave it to himâthis was entirely my son-in-law's businessâI made a charge for lending the money.

By theCOURT. I am not a money-lender now; I have given it upâI owe the prosecutor money, and he owes me moneyâI owe him a little more than he owes meâI told him I would advance the business up to Â£2,000.

ByMR. LEYCESTER. I took no financial part in the business except to charge 2s. 6d. a week for travelling to the office at Camberwell Green from HoveâI am still on the Register as a money lender in the name of J. Watsonâwhen I say I have given it up I mean I am going to give it upâI last registered in November 1900, as carrying on business at 8, St. James' Road, Holloway, N, and 36, Stafford Street, and 23, Seymour Street, Liverpool, but I have given that up, and two more at ManchesterâI did not know I was bound to register my change of addressâI have two sons, Myer and Percy Cohen; they are registered as carrying on a money lending business as L. MartinâMyer is 23, and Percy is 16âI gave them the moneyâPercy is at 42, Bedford Hill, BalhamâGeorge May is my eldest son; he is also in the money lending businessâMyer Cohen is "George May and also "L. Martin"âhe carries on business at Walham Green and 147, Edgware RoadâI have an interest in that businessâI was not aware I was committing an offence against the Money Lenders Act in carrying on two different businesses in different names.

GEORGE BINDON . I live at 23A Commercial Road, Peckhamâthe signature to this promissory note is not mineâI have never at any time borrowed Â£10 from H. Lawrence of Camberwell Green, nor any other sum from anybody at that addressâI did not fill up this application formâI see the words "Fishmonger" after my nameâI am not a fishmongerâI do not know the prisoner, and have never seen him before.

Cross-examined. I believe inquiries were made at my house about that bill, but I am out from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and during that time the house is emptyâit might very well happen that somebody had called without, my knowing itâthe blinds would be up and anyone could see that it was decently furnishedâI received this letter from Lawrence six or seven weeks ago, and I called oh him about two hours after: "Dear Sir, I am surprised to find that you have not yet paid last week's instalment, and must ask you to please let me have same by return. Yours faithfully, H. Lawrence"âI have several relatives named George Bindonâneither of them is a fishmongerâI do not know a man named Faulkner.

ALFRED STARR . I am a tobacconist of 138, Newington Causewayâthis promissory note is not in my writingâI have never borrowed Â£10 or any other sum from Lawrence of Camberwell GreenâI see the name "A Starr" on the backâit is not my writing, neither is this application form.

Cross-examined. I can write, and I know my writing when I see itâI am perfectly certain neither of the signatures on that bill are in my writingâMr. Rosenberg came to see me about this matterâhe showed me the bill I was supposed to have signed, and I signed my name on the back of itâI still swear that the signature on the back is not my writingâI was asked to sign in exactly the same styleâthe signature on this piece of paper

(Produced.) is very similar to mine, but that is not exactly how I did itâthat is how it was done originallyâRosenberg showed me a bill, and I signed it on the back, but this is not the oneâthis (Produced.) is the one I signed, and I signed it for a friend of mineâthis is my writing, and this may be the piece of paper I wrote onâI know a man named Faulknerâhe is a coal merchant, and a friend of mineâI know Chadd by sightâI have met Faulkner in a public-house next to my shopâFaulkner brought a document to me and I signed itâhe wanted Â£10, and asked me to do him a favourâI cannot say what the document wasâthe document I signed was for a loan of Â£10 from Lawrence or CohenâI will not swear I did not sign this bill (Produced.)âit was done in such a peculiar way that if I lived up to 100 years I could not remember how I signed it. '

By theCOURT. I signed some paper or other to oblige Faulkner by helping him to get Â£10 from Cohen or Lawrence.

Re-examined. This is not my signature, but I will not swear it.

ARTHUR HOLMES . I live at 4, Jesmond Street, Walworth, and am a hosier's assistantâthe signature on this bill is not my writingâI have never borrowed Â£8 from H. Lawrence, of Camberwell GreenâI have not written anything on this application form (Produced)âthere is no one of the name of "Alfred "Holmes living at 8, Jesmond Street, Walworth, as appears on this bill.

Cross-examined. I know Faulknerâhe has never suggested to me that I should get a loan from Lawrence, nor that I should fill up an application formâhe knew my surname, but he could not be sure about my Christian nameâhe might have known the initialâI have met Faulkner in the public-house next to Starr's shop.

ELIZABETH SMITH . I live at 4, Heber Road, East Dulwich, and am singleâthere is no one named William Whiting as appears on this promissory note and application form, living at that address, nor has there been during the four years I have lived there.

Cross-examined. Letters have come to my house addressed to Whiting, and I have sent them backâJ. E. Smith is my brotherâI have never handed over any letters to him nor to any of his friends.

ELIZABETH ANN BATTWICK . I live at 18, Hollydale Road, Peckham, and am marriedâduring the past seven years there has been no one named Phillips living at my house, as appears from this promissory note and application form.

Cross-examined. I do let to lodgers.

HERBERT CORNELIUS DAVIS . I live at 76, Beauval Road, East Dulwichâduring the past four years there has been no one named Frank Thornton Barker living there, as appears from this promissory note and application form.

Cross-examined. My wife has a brother named Barkerâhis Christian name is Fred, not FrankâI am not on very good terms with himâmy wife would not hand him letters without my knowing itâI believe he was out of work in July last.

EVAN COOK . I live at 72, Queen's Road, Peckham, and am a furniture

removerâabout October 1st the prisoner came to me for an estimate for removalâhe gave the name of Williams, of 8, Camberwell GreenâI removed his goods from that place to 13, Ashcombe Road, Wimbledon.

Cross-examined. I knew what business was carried on thereâI did not know that the prisoner was the man who was carrying on the business there, but if anybody had asked me where he had gone to I could have told them.

Re-examined. If anyone had asked me where a man named Chadd had removed to I could not have told them.

PHILIP WILLIS (Detective Sergeant P.) I went to 13, Ashcombe Road, Wimbledon, on October 20th, and arrested the prisoner on a charge of forging and uttering promissory notesâhe said, "This is a mistake, this is done for spite"âI went to 284, New Cross Roadâit was an empty house.

Cross-examined. I found out from the last witness where he had moved to.

MR. LEYCESTERsubmitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner obtained any sum from the prosecutor by false pretences. TheCOMMON SERJEANTagreed.MR. LEYCESTERthen submitted that there was no evidence that the business was Rosenberg's.MR. GRAINcontended that there was evidence that Rosenberg was the registered person under the Act, and was the person who received the documents week by week. TheCOMMON SERJEANTheld that there was evidence for the jury that Rosenberg was the prisoner's employer.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was engaged by Mr. Cohen at Â£2 per week, and 5s. for expenses, and to live rent free; that he engaged Ingram and paid him 10s. a week and his board out of his Â£2; that he received no instructions except that he was not to lend any money to Jews; that he used to write letters to applicants for loans, telling them to call and bring the letter with them, and a number of loans were done in that way; that he put them through Perry's Register to see that there were no judgment summonses or bills of sale against them, but if a person gave a false name which happened to be that of a respectable person, putting that name through Perry's he would get a satisfactory answer; that he had full discretion from Cohen to do as he pleased; that he never saw Rosenberg until after he started work, but that he sent the weekly balance sheets to Rosenberg; that the bill produced was signed by Starr, who was introduced to him, Chadd, by Faulkner, and that he received Starr's application form from Faulkner; that when Starr signed the bill he, Chadd, paid Faulkner Â£10, and that Faulkner afterwards paid several instalments; that Holmes' bill and Bindon's bill appeared to be in Faulkner's writing also, and that he paid Â£10 and Â£7 in respect of those bills, but that he could not now recognise Bind on and Holmes; that Whiting and Barker were introduced to him by J. E. Smith, and the promissory notes in those cases were executed at the office at Camberwell Green, and he advanced the money on them; that he did not remember how he got into communication with Phillips, but he advanced the money on Phillips' bill, which was signed at Camberwell Green, believing the person who signed it was Phillips, as in all the other

notes; that as he promised to look in at the office from time to time after he had left he did call upon two clients to remind them that they were in arrear, and he was then shown a circular stating that he was no longer in Cohen's employ and ceased to go to the office any more; that when he removed he had no motive in giving the name of Williams; that he was, in fact, negotiating to take 284, New Cross Road, but it never came off, and that the promissory notes were all accepted in good faith on his part.

Witness for the defence.

JAMES EDWARD SMITH . I am a clerkâI know ChaddâBarter was a fellow clerk of mine, and I introduced him to ChaddâI had nothing whatever to do with filling up Barker's application form, neither did I know his addressâI was present when he signed the promissory note, and I saw Chadd hand him the moneyâI also know Whitingâhe is a friend of Barker'sâI told him to go to Chadd and mention my name, and I saw Chadd hand him money in exchange for his promissory noteâMiss Smith is my sister.

Cross-examined. Barker had asked me to lend him money, and he also asked where he could get helpâI have had three loans myself from Lawrence, two I have paid, and the third I am now payingâI was circularized not to pay, and I and other fellow clerks thought we would let things take their courseâChadd had asked me to send him customers, and I did, and if he entertained them it was no business of mineâin some cases he has granted their applications and has lent them money.

The prisoner received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

59. EDWIN ROBERT ARTHUR CHADD (58) was again indicted for forging and uttering a promissory note for Â£10, with intent to defraud There were five other indictments against him for forging and uttering other promissory notes.

MR. GRAIN, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Recorder.

60. HENRY NARROWAY (35) , PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a tricycle, the property of Arthur Wood , having been convicted of felony at the West London Police Court, on August 11th, 1900. Six months' hard labour. â

(61). GEORGE MARTIN (a clergyman) (38), to unlawfully having in his possession gunpowder with intent to do damage to a stand erected round the Church of St. George, in the Borough. He received an excellent character. Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

(62). WILLIAM SAUNDERSON ARMSTRONG (35) , to embezzling Â£5 6s. 4d., Â£4 8s. 9d., Â£8 10s. 7d., Â£26 13s. 6d., and Â£11 0s. 6d., the moneys of the London, City and Midland Bank, Limited, his masters. Also to wilfully, and with intent to defraud, omitting to make certain entries in the books of the said Bank. He received a good character. Four years' penal servitude. â [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

(63). FREDERICK NESTOR (32) (Indicted with Bessie Kynch ), to stealing a brooch and other articles, the property of Bertha Clare Greenway, in her dwelling house. Also to stealing and receiving a watch and other articles, the property of Thomas Dale. ( See next case.) [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

64. FREDERICK NESTOR was again indicted with BESSIE KYNCH (22) for stealing and receiving four rings and other articles, the property of Frederick George Hambley Nestor, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell, on April 3rd, 1900, as Sidney Percival Harcourt. Five other convictions wire proved against him.

MR. PERCIVAL CLARK , for the prosecution, offered no evidence against KYNCH.

NOT GUILTY .âStolen property to the value of Â£552 5s. 9d. had been traced to Nestor. Five years' penal servitude.

Before Mr. Justice Bigham.

65. WILLIAM BROWN (42) was indicted for and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Elizabeth Brown.

MR. BIRONandMR. MURPHYProsecuted, andMR. PERCIVAL HUGHESand

MR. METHVENDefended.

SAMUEL HUGHES (109 B.) Produced and proved a plan of 1, Mullin's Path, Mortlake, and also one of the district.

DANIEL MCNAMARA . I live at 39, Hampton Square, Mortlakeâthe deceased was my daughterâshe was married to the prisoner about twenty-two years agoâfrom what I know of them I never see him shoving herâI do not know of any complaintsâI saw the prisoner in the Mortlake Hotel on November 2nd, about 7 p.m.âhe asked me what I would have to drinkâwe had a glass togetherâhe went away in about ten minutesâI stopped talking to my matesâI went out and returned in about five minutesâthe deceased came to the door and spoke to me, and then went away againâthat was about 7.10âI saw her in the Mortlake Hotel about 9 p.m.âshe had a drink in her handâI did not see when she left.

Cross-examined. When I went out I left the deceased there, sitting down, and five or six young chaps were talking to herâthe prisoner was not there thenâshe did not complain to me when I left the public-house that she had quarrelled with the prisonerâthe prisoner was a good husband to her, and a good man to me and my wife and grandchildren.

MABEL WAGHORN . I am a barmaid at the Mortlake HotelâI knew the deceasedâon Saturday, December 1st, I saw her in the bar with the prisonerâI do not know the time, or if they came in together.

Cross-examined. The bar was often fullâI think they were on good terms, I did not notice anything the matter with themâI did not see the deceased come back afterwards.

ESTHER STANLEY . My father keeps the Jolly Maltman, 64, High Street, MortlakeâI knew the prisoner and the deceased as customersâon November 1st, the prisoner came in about 8.30 p.m.âthe deceased came in shortly afterwardsâthe prisoner spoke to me but I did not speak to himâthe deceased said to him, "Give me the key, I have had to get in through the window"âthen she said to me, "He has got the key, Miss Stanley, and I cannot get in"âthey seemed to be on friendly terms thenâthey had some refreshmentâhe did not give her the key then, he only laughed when she asked himâhe gave her the key about a quarter of an hour afterwardsâhe showed her the key, then he leaned over and showed it to me for a joke, and then she took itâhe did not seem to be teasing herâ

they both left together and went towards their homeâI know Walter King, he was standing near the prisoner and the deceased in the barâbefore they went out I left the bar for a few momentsâKing was in the bar thenâthe prisoner came into the bar again sometime after 10 p.m., and started joking, then he called for a glass of beerâhe left at eleven o'clock, which is our closing hourâhe took two pint bottles of beer with himâon Sunday, November 2nd, he came into the bar again between 1 and 2 p.m.âI said to him, "Is it true?" he said, "Yes, only too true"âI had heard of the murder then, and that is what I referred toâI said, "I wonder how it happened," and he said, "Nobody knows"âhe came in again in the evening and said the same thing, that nobody knew anything about itâon Monday, about 10 a.m., he came into the bar againâI asked him how the murder had been done; he said he could not make out how it had been doneâI said, "It is a most strange thing, I cannot understand it,"âhe said, "Neither can I, Miss"âon other occasions he spoke to others in the bar, but not to meâI heard what he said.

Cross-examined. He seemed to think it was a very strange matter, and that there was a mystery about the deceased's deathâhe was in our house three days after the murderâhe went backwards and forwards to his houseâI could see right into his house if I stood at our back doorâwhen he and the deceased left the bar on the Sunday night at nine o'clock, they were laughing and jokingâI heard them mumbling but I could not hear what they were sayingâthere was nothing to suggest that they were quarrellingâwhen the prisoner returned about ten he was in his usual mannerâhe was joking with me againâhe was quite soberâhe shook hands and said good-night.

WALTER KING . I am a baker of 26, Model Cottages, Mortlakeâon Saturday, November 1st, between 8 and 9 p.m., I was in the bar of the Jolly Maltman public-houseâthe prisoner came in, and the deceased after himâthey seemed on friendly termsâI saw Miss Stanley in the bar, and saw her leaveâthe deceased asked the prisoner if he was coming homeâI do not know whether he said "Yes" or "No"âthey seemed on bad terms then, because he went over to her and said three wordsâthey were "b----y." "bleeding," and "f----g"âhe seemed angryâthey left the bar shortly after.

Cross-examined. This was not the first time I had heard those three wordsâI did not give evidence before the Coroner or the MagistrateâI did to Inspector Scott, and he wrote it downâthe deceased said, "Are you coming home?"

WILLIAM COX . I am seven years old, and live with my parents at 1, Mullin's Path, Mortlakeâon Saturday night, about 9.50, I was near 1, Senior Place, Mullin's PathâI knew that Mr. and Mrs. Brown lived there, and knew Mrs. Brown's voiceâI heard two screams of murder in a woman's voice which I knew was Mrs. Brown's, come from the kitchenâI opened the garden gate, looked through the kitchen window, and saw the prisoner kicking Mrs. Brown, who was lying on the floor against the table, between it and the windowâI saw him kick her on her forehead, and then he came but the back way about ten o'clock and went down the Avenueâ

that was about three minutes after the kickingâI had left the window when I saw him outsideâbefore I saw him outside the house I spoke to Mrs. Whelan.

Cross-examined. It is not very dark thereâthere is a lamp on the other side, but not on the side I wasâthere is another at the end at the bottom of the streetâthat was the first time I heard cries of murder in that streetâI knew before that it was Mr. Brown's houseâthe man I saw there had his back to meâit was only Mrs. Brown's face that I could seeâI never saw anyone come out of the houseâI never got nearer than two feet from the windowâI never went up to itâI was not very frightenedâthe cries of murder did not frighten meâthere was a flower pot in the window, and the blind was about half-way up, not as high as the window latchâI saw over the flower-pots, not between themâthe blind was up high over themâthere was a table in the room, and Mrs. Brown was on this side of itâI only heard her voiceâthe lamp was at the back part, on the table; it was litâI could only see into one room, the kitchenâthe man's back was to me, and he was kicking her body on the floorâI said at the inquest, "I saw him go round and come to the front of the house, and go down the Path"âI remember going to Mrs. Whelan'sâI saw her go to the house, open the door, and look in and shut the door, and come out.

Re-examined. I saw Brown coming down Mullin's PathâI was runningâI saw him before I ran down Mullin's PathâI knew him by his faceâI saw him sideways.

By theCOURT. When I was looking through the window he was about four feet away from meâI have no doubt that it was Brown; I know it was himâwhen. I was running down Mullin's Path I was going to Mrs. Whelan's, but I did not go to her house.

WALTER HORSMAN . I am ten years old, and live at 38, High StreetâI knew Mrs. Brownâon Saturday, November 1st, I was playing with other boys in High Street; Cox came up and said something, and I went with him to Mullin's PathâI saw Willie Cox go to the windowâI stopped at the corner and heard cries of "Murder" in a woman's voiceâI heard no other voiceâjust after the cries Mrs. Young went to the house, and I saw Mr. Brown come out at his front doorâshe had knocked at the door before he came outâI was about as far from him as I am from the end of the jury-boxâI am sure it was Brown.

Cross-examined. I was running away when I saw him come outâwe three boys all ran away togetherâwe ran before he came out because a policeman was comingâhe was a short man who came outâI only judge by his height, that is why I say it was Mr. Brownâhe was not running after me, or I after himâhe went towards Stanley's beershopâhe came out at 9.30 or 10 o'clockâit was directly after the cryâwhen Mrs. Young got to the gate, Brown was in the houseâI am quite sure of thatâI said before the Coroner, "Mrs. Brown said, 'Someone wants you,' and Mrs. Brown answered, 'No, who the bây hell wants to see me to-night?"âthat observation of Mrs. Brown must have been after the cry of murderâit was after Mrs. Young knocked at the door that I heard the cries of murderâthe door was not openâI do not know whether Mrs. Whelan

opened itâwhen I heard that expression by Mrs. Brown, Mr. Brown was in the house as well as Mrs. YoungâI did not hear him speakâwhen I was examined before the Coroner I did say that Mr. Brown was not in the house when Mrs. Brown called out, but not in those wordsâhe was in the house at the time of that conversation.

THOMAS DANCER . I am ten years old, and Jive with my parents at MortlakeâI was with Cook near Mullin's Path about 9.45âI know the Browns' houseâI heard a rumbling noise like the roll of a drum in the house.

WILLIAM HORSMAN (Re-examined.) While I was standing at the corner, I saw Brown come out of his back placeâI know him well and am sure that it was Brown.

Cross-examined. I heard the door open and commenced to run away directly, so that I was running away from Brownâas soon as the back place opened I began to run away down the alley, and he followed meâhe did not appear to be running after meâMullin's Path is a dark place.

By theCOURT. I saw Mr. Brownâhe was not as far from me when he opened the gate as from here to that red doorâit was a dark nightâdirectly the gate shut we all said, "Here comes Mr. Brown," and then we ran away.

Re-examined. There is a lamp there; it was about as far from me as from here to that wall.

ELIZABETH WHELAN . I live at Model Cottages, Vinyaad Yard, Mullin's Path, MortlakeâI know where the Browns livedâon Saturday night, November 1st, I was near thereâa little boy said something to me, and I said something to Mrs. Young, who went straight to the Brown's house and knocked at the doorâMr. Brown came to the door, and I heard his voice but he did not open itâhe said, "Who is there?"âMrs. Young said, "Are you in, Mr. Brown?"âhe said, "Yes; what do you want?"âshe said, "Is Mrs. Brown in?"âhe said, "Yes," and turned round to his wife and said, "You are wanted"âI heard Mrs. Brown's voice, but could not distinguish the words, and Mr. Brown came out of the gateâI could see the garden gate, it was about as far off as from me to youânext morning, Sunday, November 2nd, at nine o'clock, I went to the Brown's house and saw him; I said, "Where were you, Mr. Brown, last night?"âthere were a lot of people standing outside, and then I saw Brown standing in his front garden with his arms like thisâI went into the house and into the sculleryâI saw the woman lying on the stairs, and I came out of the front door into the garden and said, "Brown, where were you all last night?"âhe said, "I was in bed"âI said, "Do you mean to say you went to bed and left your wife at the foot of the stairs like this?"âhe said, "She was not in when I went to bed"âI told him to go for a doctor, and he wentâthat was all the conversation I had.

Cross-examined. I was not far from the house the night before whenâI came up to these boysâI did not see anybody come out of the houseâat the minute I came out at the garden gate I saw this boy runningâI did not see Brown at all, but I heard a voice inside, and I knew it was Mr. Brown's voice, knowing him wellâI did not open the door.

Cross-examined. If one boy says that I went to the door that is not correct; I never went near the doorâI live right oppositeâthe distance from door to door is as far as from here to the dock.

By theCOURT. My front room is a good way from his, because Brown's house is at the corner and mine is down a court, and it would be impossible for me to hear any noise in Brown's houseâwhen I went up to the house there was a light in the windowâI did not go up close to the gate; I never went near the gateâthe blind was down, and, I think, all downâwhen I saw him in the morning and asked him about his wife he said that he did not see her when he went to bed.

Re-examined. When I say that the blind was down I do not mean as far as I could seeâit was up about four inches on the Sunday morningâI do not know whether Cox is the boy who spoke to me; a policeman came to the corner, and they all ran.

ANNIE REBECCA YOUNG . I live with my husband, George Young, at 62, Senior Place, Mullin's Path, Mortlakeâour house is next door to that occupied by the prisoner and the deceasedâwe have lived there about seven years and the Browns about five or six monthsâOn November 1st the deceased came to my house about 7.30 p.m.; she left a new hat with me, and then went awayâabout 9.30.I saw Mrs. Whelanâshe said something to me and I went and knocked at the deceased's door; there was a light in the front room thenâwhen I knocked, the door was not opened, but the prisoner said, "Who is there?" I knew his voice; I said, "Mrs. Young"âI heard the prisoner say to the deceased, "You are wanted"âshe said, "There is no bâbody wants to see me to-night"âI came away from the door and went to where Mrs. Whelan was standingâI did not see any more of the Browns that nightâI know Cox; I saw him after I came from the Brown's door with some other boys, but they all ran awayâthere is a back way out of the prisoner's houseâI then went into No. 3âI went home after 11 p.m.âI did not notice anything at the prisoner's house, but there was a light in the windowâI next saw the prisoner on Sunday morning at my back door at 8.50âhe said, "Annie,âI want to speak to you"âI went with him to his house, and he said, "Annie, I think she is dead"âI said, "Good God, who?"âhe said, "Bess," that is his wifeâhe went into the house; I followed himâI saw the deceased lying on the stairs leading up to the bedroomâI screamed out twice; I fell against the door, and when I came to I see my husband there.

Cross-examined. The prisoner asked my husband to fetch a constableâthe prisoner seemed surprised that the deceased was deadâthere is nothing between the deceased's kitchen and my house except a wallâif I was in my place I should hear any screams in the deceased's kitchenâI heard no cries during the Saturday nightâwhen I went and spoke to the prisoner through the door the voices which answered me were quite naturalâI did not think a murderous assault had been committedâI stood outside my daughter-in-law's houseâI heard no cries at all.

GEORGE YOUNG . I am the husband of the last witness, and lived next door to the prisonerâon November 1st, at 7.30 p.m., I saw the deceased

in my washhouse speaking to my wife; I did not see her again that eveningânext morning my wife left the house; shortly afterwards I heard her scream; I rushed to the prisoner's door; I saw my wife leaning against the door in a fainting conditionâI saw the deceased and the prisonerâI said to him, "You will have to have a police-constable and a doctor"âI got constable Gook.

Cross-examined. On November 1st I went to my step son's about 20 p.m.âI did not go home between nine and ten, but I passed close to my home at 9.20âI heard no noise from the prisoner's house thenâI live two doors from himâI stood outside my house from 11.10 till 11.40âI did not hear anything thenâthe prisoner seemed very surprised when he heard that the deceased was dead.

Re-examined. I told, the prisoner she had been dead for hours, and he seemed a little surprisedâI judged that she had been dead for hours because I touched her arm.

By theJURY. If I was in my room, and anyone was talking loud in No. 1, I could hear them.

FREDERICK COOK (316 V.) On Sunday morning,-November 2nd, I was fetched by YoungâI went to the prisoner's house; I found the deceased lying on the stairs; her face was on the fourth step and her feet on the floor; she was face downwards; her left arm was under her head in a bent position, and her right arm was on the third step; her hair was all down and partly hanging over her face; herâclothes were very wet with water; her hair and hands were-dampâDr. Bell came about fifteen minutes after I arrived; I then moved the body into the kitchenâthe blind in the kitchen was drawn down to within four inches of the bottomâthere were some previsions and two beer bottles on the tableâthere was an old brown skirt lying in the scullery appearing to be torn in half and saturated with waterâI also found half a pair of corsetsâthere was an enamelled bowl on the copper partly filled with dirty water, and a hammer (Produced.) lying against the kitchen door in-the sculleryâthe prisoner came in about ten minutes after I arrivedâI said to him, "Are you her husband?"âhe replied, "Yes"; I asked him when he last saw his wife alive; he replied, "At half-past six last night at the Mortlake Hotel; she had a drop of port wine with me, and I gave her 18s."âI said, "Was that the last time you see her alive?"âhe said, "Yes; "I asked him what time he discovered the body in the morning; he replied, "About a quarter to nine; I called to her thinking she was asleep, but I failed to get an answer, so I stepped over her and called in Mrs; Young, the next-door neighbour"âI asked him what time he arrived at home the night before; he replied, "About eleven o'clock"; I asked him if his wife had come home then, and he said, "No."

Cross-examined. We were standing by the dead body when I asked him those questionsâI did not warn himâhe was not arrested till the following Wednesdayâthere was a glass partly full in the kitchenâthe prisoner said he had had a glass or two of beer when he came in at eleven, and then went to bedâthere was a table and some chairs in the kitchenâ

there was a cloth on the tableâwhen I first saw the deceased she was lying on her face, but more inclined to the left side.

By the JURY I did not see any other bottles which appeared to have been lately emptiedâno money was found on the deceasedâthere were patches of water in the scullery and some near the feet of the bodyâthere were no traces of blood in the kitchen.

HAMILTON JOSEPH BELL . I am a medical practitioner of 66, Sheen Lane, MortlakeâI was called to the prisoner's house on November 2nd, about 9.15 a.m.âI saw the body of the deceasedâshe had been dead for any time from five hours upwardsâthe body was quite cold and stiffâI cannot say the exact number of hours, but in my opinion at least fiveâDr. Crookshank was not there thenâI found the body lying on its face over the lower three or four steps of the stairsâthere was a very damp place on the front of the jacket, apparently vomited matter, which had fallen on itâthe body was only partly dressedâshe had on a short brown jacket, a cream-coloured flannel petticoat, and a linen chemise, but no dressâI did not notice any signs of water having been thrown aboutâI struck a match and looked at her face without moving the body, and I saw there were no marks or scratches on her faceâa little vomited matter was coming from her nose and mouth and a little blood with itâI made a more careful examination when the body was brought to the mortuaryâon the head I found a contusion with a certain amount of laceration over the left ear,âanother contusion with a laceration on the outer side of the left eye, and an extensive bruise over the right side of the head above the templeâthere was a very large tear on the inside of the lower lipâthere was an abrasion on the nose and one on the chin, and bruises all over the body which all seemed to be recent, except four on the right thigh, which seemed to be perhaps a couple of days oldâon the 3rd I made a post mortem by myself and discovered serious injuries, and on the 4th Dr. Crookshank and I made a post mortem togetherâon opening the body I found nine ribs broken on the right side, and five on the left-some of those on the right were broken in two placesâthe breast bone was broken in two placesâunder the breast bone there was an extravasation of blood, evidently the result of the bruising of the tissues from the broken breast boneâI found no other injuries except those to the ribs, and bruisesâthere was a large bruise on the head, and on opening the head I found a large extravasation of blood corresponding with the bruise outsideâthat is what I should expect to findâmy opinion is that death was due to shock from injuries received, particularly those to the breast bone and ribsâthere is a possibility that asphyxia may have been present also, but I should not like to say definitely from what I saw; I mean the vomit may have been taken down into the lungs and asphyxiated herâin my opinion the injuries Were of such a character as to cause deathâI did not notice any sign which suggested that there had been any concussion at all, but it is quite possible from the large bruise on the right side of the head and the quantity of blood beneath it, which showed that the bruise was severeâthere was rather a severe bruise on the left side of the perineumâthe breaking of the bones on the left side were most likely caused by pressure aboveâthe lower four

ribs that were broken on the left side corresponded with a very bad bruise on the skin just over the four ribs, and in my opinion the breaking of those four ribs were caused by that bruiseâa kick would be the most probable cause of that bruise,âthis hammer might perhaps have caused itâthe injuries to the head were evidently occasioned by some hard instrument, but not by the fist, possibly by a kick or a hammerâif the injuries were inflicted on her away from the house it would have been impossible for her to have got up and walked into the houseâshe might have crawled a few yards perhaps.

Cross-examined. I do not suggest that the injury to the perineum was one which would have contributed by itself to the deceased's death; there was injury to the tissues which shows the wounds were caused before deathâthe body had not begun to decompose when I opened itâI know it was the opinion of Dr. Crookshank that death was due to some vomited matter getting into the windpipe and causing asphyxiation; that is quite possible; in different cases of asphyxia the appearences are not always the sameâI think most of the bruises were too severe to have been caused, by falling down stairsâthey might have been caused by some weight falling or being struck down on herâthere are twenty-four ribes in a body; some of them are called true and some false ribs; some are flying ribs which do not join the sternum, and they come forward and end in soft tissuesâthe ribs are connected by a kind of elastic substance to enable the ribs to go up and down with breathingâbroken ribs are one of the commonest things I have to deal with next to broken arms and legsâwe often have broken ribs to deal with in drunken peopleâribs might be broken by the body falling on some projecting substanceâI do not know that I have ever heard of them being broken by simple muscular contraction even in cases of powerful expiratory effortsâI do not say it is impossible, but it is not likelyâa broken sternum is sometimes associated with the breaking of ribs, towards the bottom it gets more fragileâit is fair to say that it is caused sometimes by direct blows or compression by heavy weights, but more frequently by indirect violence, such as falling across a projecting bodyâin this case the sternum could not have been broken by falling on a projecting bodyâthere was no bruise, and it was broken by the pressure of some soft substanceâthe deceased was a lightly-built womanâshe weighed about 8 st. 7 lbs.âI did not weigh her, but that is my impressionâshe was not stout, she was thinâin cases of thin people the tissues are generally very much stronger, and the bones are harder than in stout peopleâI have never heard of the sternum being fractured by an effort to prevent a fall backwardsâit might be possible to break the sternum in one place in that wayâthe deceased had a very small heart and something wrong with her lungs, but very little wrongâI was Told she was about forty years old.

By theJURY. My theory is that the ribs and the sternum were both broken by the same violenceâthere were no outward signs of bleedingâthe pressure of a knee would fracture the sternum.

FRANCIS GRAHAM CROOKSHANK . I practise at 27, The Terrace, BarnesâI made a post-mortem examination of the deceased with Dr. BellâI

agree generally with his evidenceâI think the immediate cause of death was the drawing in of vomited matter into her air passagesâthe vomiting was probably the result of the injuries to the head and the general shock, more probably the injuries to the headâI think I attach a little more importance to the injuries to the head than Dr. Bell does, but speaking generally I think death would result from the shock caused by the injuriesâI agree generally with Dr. Bell as to how the injuries were caused.

Cross-examined. If I am right in supposing that the vomiting was the result of injury to the head, the vomiting would have occurred whether the deceased had been drinking or notâit would be unlikely for persons to be suffocated by vomit if they were conscious; they would cough and reject itâthere are cases where the coughing is not successful when solid matter is drawn into the lungs, but not often when liquid matter is drawn into the lungs.

By theJURY. There was nothing to lead me to suppose that the deceased was a drunken womanâthere was no trace of alcoholic liquor in the stomach.

WILLIAM WHITING . I live at 11, Eveldon Road, Richmond, and am the Coroner's officerâon Sunday, November 2nd, I received information from the police, and in consequence about 1 p.m. I went to 1, Senior Place, Mullin's PathâI saw the body of the deceased there, and ordered its removal to the mortuaryâI saw the prisoner at the houseâI asked him if the body was that of his wife; he replied, "Yes," and that she was employed in laundry work at Acton, and said "At 6.30 last night I met her in the Mortlake Hotel, High Street, Mortlake, where I gave her 16s. and treated her to two penny worth of port wine; she was quite well and sober at that time; I left shortly afterwards, leaving my wife at the hotel; I did not go home till 11 p.m., my wife was not at home at that time; I had taken two pint bottles of beer home with me, which I drank and went to bed about 11.45 p.m.; I got up about 8.30 a.m. and found my wife lying dead on the stairs; I went and called Mr. and Mrs. Young, my next-door neighbours, who came and sent for the doctor and police; my wife did not come to bed that night; I never heard anything of her during the night; I never saw her again after I left her at the hotel at 6.30 p.m. the previous evening; she would take too much drink at times, and we have quarrelled with each other at times, but not lately"âI afterwards went upstairs into the bedroom.

Cross-examined. The bed had been slept in.

By theCOURT. The husband and wife usually occupied the one bed.

WILLIAM FURR . I am in charge of the mortuary at Mortlakeâon Sunday, November 2nd, I received the body of the deceased thereâthe clothes she was wearing, were removed in my presenceâshe had on a flannel petticoat loosely round her; she had lace boots, stockings, and a jacket; they were all wet.

ELIZABETH O'CONNELL . I am the wife of Patrick O'Connell, and live at 8, Hampton Square, Sheen Laneâthe deceased was my sisterâI have known the prisoner for some timeâI have been in the habit of visiting them, but I had not seen them for a fortnight before the murderâthey

never lived very happyâI went to the house on November 2nd, about 9.15 a.m.âI found a black skirt in the corner of the kitchen; it was torn right up from the backâI did not notice anything on itâon the following Tuesday I found a pair of staysâI saw the prisoner on November 2nd two or three timesâI met him as I was going to the house, and said to him, "This is all right, Brown; you know all about it, you have done this"âhe said, "You know my business better than I do myself"âon the 4th, about 5.30 p.m., I saw him outside the Wheatsheaf beer shop at the top of the street where we liveâI said to him, "You know all about this, why don't you speak the truth and own to it, and say who done it?"âhe said, "I went to Woolwich, I could not rest, my landlady said, 'Brown, why can't you sleep of a night,'"âhe then said to me, "I had to do it"âI asked him to come round and have a cup of tea at my houseâI left him at the top of the street, and he came in just before 6 o'clockâI asked him to have a cup of tea and I poured it outâwhile having the tea, he said, "The Lord have mercy on my poor Bess"âI said, "Brown, take her out of all blame and shame, and the talk of the people"âhe said, "Yes, I done it"âI asked him if he would tell the truth before the Coroner next dayâhe said, "Yes, you know who it is through"âI said, "No"âhe said, "Through cursed Daly"âmy husband and son came in then; I do not know if they heard what the prisoner had saidâDaly is a young man we have known for years about MortlakeâI know that the prisoner went to Woolwich about two years ago; his wife did not go with himâthe prisoner said he went because he had seen his wife and Daly coming out of Shady Lane, and that she had been behaving badly with DalyâI do not know that she had been behaving badly with Daly, and the prisoner is the only one I ever heard say soâthis (Produced.) is my sister's purse.

Cross-examined. Nothing has been said about the Daly incident for two years until nowâthe deceased and Daly said it was a lieâpeople have talked of it latelyâwhen I met the prisoner by the Wheatsheaf, and he said "I had to do it,"I thought he meant that he had killed herâhe was crying, and I asked him to have a cup of tea after he said thatâI accused him of murdering my sister at 9 a.m., before anybody else did, and every day till he was arrestedâI made sure it was himâI went into his house and got hold of some of my sister's clothesâthe prisoner never made any objection to my going there and searching the premisesâI did no give evidence at firstâdirectly my husband and son came into my kitchen the prisoner got up to goâhe did not go out at onceâI did not hear what he said to them, because I was getting the teaâthe prisoner went to the Coroner and made a statementâhe said he would tell the truth and that nobody knew it but the Almighty and himself and herselfâI do not know why he made the confession to meâhe was crying in my kitchen.

By theJURY. When the prisoner spoke about not being able to sleep that was two years agoâI was on good terms with my father, and he was on good terms with the deceased.

PATRICK O'CONNELL . I am the husband of the last witnessâon Tuesday, November 4th, about 6 p.m., I went home; I saw the prisoner and my

wife there; my wife said to me, "Pat, he has told me all about it"âthe prisoner said, "Yes old girl, I have told you all about it, I murdered her, and I will go up there to-morrow and tell them all about it, and they can do as they like with me; where she was found I sat in the chair and see her crawl there; then I got sorry and thought she was in a fit; I gotâsome water and threw over her; I attempted it six times, and the Lord have mercy on her soul."

Cross-examined. I did not hear the prisoner say anything before what I have statedâmy wife could have heard all I have saidâI cannot say why the prisoner should have made this confessionâI did not know that my wife had been accusing him every day since the murderâshe had never told me before that it was her belief that the prisoner was the man who had done it.

JOHN DALY . I have known the prisoner and his wife for about twenty yearsâabout two years ago I spoke to-the deceased in Richmond Roadâthere is no lane thereâthe prisoner came by while I was speaking to herâthat is all that happened on that occasionâthere has never been any impropriety between me and the deceased as far as I know.

Cross-examined. I had not seen the prisoner or the deceased for months before the murder.

JAMES SCOTT (Detective Inspector V.) About 4 p.m. on November 4th I saw the body of the deceasedâabout 11.45 the same night I saw the prisoner at his houseâI said I was a police officer, and that I should take him into custody for causing his wife's death by kicking herâhe said, No one saw it done"âI cautioned him, and told him anything he said might be used in evidence against himâafter a moment's hesitation he said, "I left her at the Mortlake Hotel; I gave her twopennyworth of port wine and 16s., that is the last I saw of her; she left the house before me at 7.30, and went home with my tea bottle; nobody knows anything about it, nobody saw it done"âon November 5th the charge was formerly read over to himâhe said, "I did not do it, I never saw the woman since I left her at the Mortlake Hotel at. 7 o'clock, when I gave her a glass of wine and 16s."âI afterwards charged him with wilful murder, and he made no remark.

Cross-examined. I made a note at the time of what the prisoner saidâif I said at the inquest that the prisoner said, "I never done it," instead of "No one saw it done," it is a mistakeâI had my note book at the inquest, but I did not use itâthe prisoner at the station said, "I never done it."

JOHN WILLIAM BURROWS . I was acting as clerk to Dr. Taylor, the Coroner, on the occasion of this inquestâI took down the depositionsâthe prisoner was sworn, and I took down his statementâit was read over toâhim, and he signed it. (The prisoner's statement before the Coroner was then read.).

GEORGE KENNINGS (645 V.) (Not examined in chief).

Examined byMR. HUGHES.) On Saturday, November 1st, I left my house at 9.25 p.m. to goon night dutyâI passed the prisoner's house two minutes laterâI saw some boys running away and I saw Mrs. Whelan coming from her houseâI passed her at the corner of the prisoner's

houseâI arrived at Barnes police station at 9.40âwhen I passed the prisoner's house I heard no disturbance whatever.

Theâprisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was with his wife in the Jolly Mailman about 8.45 p.m.; that they were on friendly terms; that they went out together, and he bought some tobacco; that he followed her home, where he arrived just after 9 p.m.; that his wife asked him for a few more shillings; that he said he had only got 2s. more; that she came up close to him with a cup or something in her hand, and he pushed her away; that she went up against the side of the table, but did not fall; that he then went and had a wash in the scullery, and then walked down to the bottom of the alley, where he stood for a few minutes smoking; that he then went into Stanley's where he stayed till 11 o'clock when he went home taking two bottles of beer with him; that his wife was not then at home; that he drank one bottle of beer and part of the other and then went to bed upstairs; that he stopped in bed till 8.30 a.m.; that he then went down stairs and saw his wife lying at the bottom; that he thought she was in a fit, and got some water and wetted her forehead; that he took her clothes, which were lying by her side, and put them somewhere, but he did not know where, and that he then called Mrs. Young; that he had not assaulted his wife, nor had he told Mrs. O'Connell what she had said he said, but only that he knew nothing at all about it.